Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"The matter was discussed in great detail. The Syndicate recalled that the Ordinances governing double valuation for MBBS & BDS were approved after detailed consideration of all aspects in the meeting of the Syndicate held on 24.08.1999. It was introduced in the best interest of students. Double valuation ensures assessments with additional care by every individual Examiner due to the fact that he/she will be aware that it is going to be valued by yet another examiner. Some members suggested to consider the best of the two valuations to the advantage of the students. It was pointed out that taking average marks of 66 and connected matters two valuations is universally accepted wherever the system of double valuation is in existence in the Universities of this country. by choosing best of two the very basis of double valuation is negated. The percentage of results are in no way affected by the double valuation. Considering all these aspects the Syndicate unanimously favoured maintaining the status quo".

5. Thereafter, a learned single Judge of this Court had occasion to consider the validity of the said Ordinance in MOAZAM SHAH KHAN VS. VICE-CHANCELLOR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES (ILR 2002 Kar.1146) he held:

"That leaves me with the only other question namely: Whether the Ordinance providing for double valuation suffer from any arbitrariness or irrationality? My answer to the same is also in the negative. The University is entitled to determine how the answer scripts for any given examination should be evaluated and by how many examiners. It may consider evaluation only by one Examiner to be sufficient and even in such a case it may not provide for revaluation of the scripts. The students cannot in such a situation claim any inherent right for re-valuation of the scripts. Judicial intervention apart, the evaluation made by a single examiner would also be binding on the student. The University may also provide for revaluation and recognise that the evaluation by an examiner may in certain situations be subjective or erratic. It may adopt a third approach as has been done by the University in the instant case. It may instead of one Examiner conducting the evaluation and the papers being sent for revaluation, provide for evaluation of the answer scripts by two examiners and take the average of the two, as the marks awarded to the candidate. Any such Scheme would take care of situations where the 67 and connected matters marking of the scripts may be alleged to be subjective or erratic. There is no gain said that the element of error in human judgment is considerably lower in cases where the scripts are marked by two examiners independently. Two heads are certainly better than one, given regard to the fact that both have the basic qualifications prescribed for acting as examiners. The fact that double valuation causes any prejudice or that it introduces an element of irrationality in the process of evaluation of the scripts or that the candidates must even after a double valuation be given the right to seek a further valuation by a third examiner has therefore to be rejected. So also the submission that the evaluation by one Examiner followed by re-valuation of another will make any improvement in the situation, must fail for qualitatively there is no difference between a situation where a single examiner evaluates the scripts first followed by a revaluation of the same, and situation in which two examiners independently evaluate the scripts and the average of the two is awarded to the candidate.

That leaves me with the only other question namely: Whether the Ordinance providing for double valuation suffer from any arbitrariness or irrationality? My answer to the same is also in the negative. The University is entitled to determine how the answer scripts for any given examination should be evaluated and by how many examiners. It may consider evaluation only by one Examiner to be sufficient and even in such a case it may not provide for revaluation of the scripts. The students cannot in such a situation claim any inherent right for re-valuation of the scripts. Judicial intervention apart, the evaluation made by a single examiner would also be binding on the student. The University may also provide for revaluation and recognise that the evaluation by an examiner may in certain situations be subjective or erratic. It may adopt a third approach as has been done by the University in the instant case. It may instead of one Examiner conducting the evaluation and the papers being sent for revaluation, provide for evaluation of the answer scripts by two 71 and connected matters examiners and take the average of the two, as the marks awarded to the candidate. Any such Scheme would take care of situations where the marking of the scripts may be alleged to be subjective or erratic. There is no gain said that the element of error in human judgment is considerably lower in cases where the scripts are marked by two examiners independently. Two heads are certainly better than one, given regard to the fact that both have the basic qualifications prescribed for acting as examiners. The fact that double valuation causes any prejudice or that it introduces an element of irrationality in the process of evaluation of the scripts or that the candidates must even after a double valuation be given the right to seek a further valuation by a third examiner has therefore to be rejected. So also the submission that the evaluation by one Examiner followed by re- valuation of another will make any improvement in the situation, must fail for qualitatively there is no difference between a situation where a single examiner evaluates the scripts first followed by a revaluation of the same, and situation in which two examiners independently evaluate the scripts and the average of the two is awarded to the candidate.

4.23. S.K. Sabir Ahmed v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences [ILR 2004 KAR 3419] [Paras 9 & 10]

9. In Moazam Shah Khan's case (supra), this Court has upheld the said Ordinance. The relevant portion is as follows:

"That leaves me with the only other question namely: Whether the Ordinance providing for double valuation suffer from any arbitrariness or irrationality? My answer to the same is also in the negative. The University is entitled to determine how the answer scripts for any given examination should be 72 and connected matters evaluated and by how many examiners. It may consider evaluation only by one Examiner to be sufficient and even in such a case it may not provide for revaluation of the scripts. The students cannot in such a situation claim any inherent right for revaluation of the scripts. Judicial intervention apart, the evaluation made by a single examiner would also be binding on the student. The University may also provide for revaluation and recognise the evaluation by an examiner may in certain situations be subjective or erratic. It may adopt a third approach as has been done by the University in the instant case. It may instead of one Examiner conducting the evaluation and the papers being sent for revaluation, provide for evaluation of the answer scripts by two examiners and take the average of the two, as the marks awarded to the candidate. Any such Scheme would take care of situations where the marking of the scripts may be alleged to be subjective or erratic. There is no gain said that the element of error in human judgment is considerably lower in cases where the scripts are marked by two examiners independently. Two heads are certainly better than one, given regard to the fact that both have the basic qualifications prescribed for acting as examiners. The fact that double valuation causes any prejudice or that it introduces an element of irrationality in the process of evaluation of the scripts or that the candidates must even after a double valuation be given the right to seek a further valuation by a third examiner has therefore to be rejected. So also the submission that the evaluation by one Examiner followed by revaluation of another will make any improvement in the situation, must fail for qualitatively there is no difference between a situation where a single examiner evaluates the scripts first followed by a revaluation of the same, and situation in which two examiners independently evaluate the scripts 73 and connected matters and the average of the two is awarded to the candidate."