Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The University has issued notification dated 15.6.2012 regarding considering average of Best of two out of three valuation marks or average of Best of four out of five valuation marks for final computation of results. Clause 4 of the notification relates to procedure for multiple valuation and clause 4(i) & 4(iv) of the notification, which are relevant for the cases on hand, read as follows:

"(i) All the answer-scripts which are subjected for double valuation, wherein the difference in award of marks between TWO valuations is ≥ 15%, shall be referred to THIRD examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel.

12. In (2014) 14 SCC 523 (CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION THORUGH SECRETARY, ALL INDIA PRE-MEDICAL/PRE-DENTAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATION AND OTHERS vs. KHUSHBOO SHRIVASTAVA & OTHERS), the Apex court dealing with question of re-evaluation held, "in the absence of any provision for the re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.

13. In ILR 2002 KAR 1146 (MOAZAM SHAH KHAN & OTHERS vs., VICE-CHANCELLOR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES & OTHERS), it has been held by this Court that "Re-valuation however is not an inherent right in the students who appear in the examination. Such a right can be claimed or enforced only if the Regulations governing the examination provide for the same." Further dealing with validity or otherwise of the ordinance providing for double valuation, this court observed at page 1150 as follows:

It is further observed at Page-1151 as follows:

"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."