Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. There are significant infirmities, illegalities and procedural improprieties while evaluating the answer scripts.

4. 2nd respondent had opposed grant of the said relief on the following grounds:-

1. There is no rule, regulation or provision of any statute for revaluation of the answer scripts.

2. The examiners have conducted evaluation properly.

3. There are traces of evaluation in the answer scripts.

4. There is no violation of any procedure in digital evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioners.

44. To complete the narration, the Court refers to the decision of the Executive Council of respondent University in the meeting held on 31.08.2016 on digital evaluation of answer scripts reads thus:

Digital evaluation of answer scripts:

Information given by the University in the said matter was perused and noted by the council.

Also permitted the University to take up digital evaluation of answer scripts of all examinations in future by identifying an agency and duly following the relevant procedures.

23. With regard to other ground raised by the petitioner that there occurred severe and significant errors, illegalities and procedural improprieties while evaluating the answer scripts, this Court do not find any such errors etc., as alleged by the petitioners.

24. It is relevant to note that respondent-University has taken the assistance of service provider for digital evaluation. The Answer scripts were evaluated by two valuators. In case of deviation of 15% of the marks after double valuation, the papers were sent to third valuator. Therefore, according to this Court, there is no occurrence of severe and significant errors, illegalities, procedural improprieties while evaluating the answer scripts as alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners herein failed to show that there are material errors committed by the evaluators while evaluating the answer scripts of the petitioners. This is not rare or exceptional case to order for revaluation of the papers as held by the Apex Court as discussed supra.