Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
15. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that at least the University should have a fair system for re-valuation. The current system of re-valuation that the University has, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, is not only prohibitively costly, but also arbitrary.
16. It appears that whenever a student seeks re-valuation, he must first apply for viewing the written answer book, after paying a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The candidate will be permitted to view the written answer book in the presence of the faculty. If the faculty is of the opinion that the answer book needs re-valuation, he may make a recommendation. Thereafter, the candidate should pay Rs.10,000/- per subject for re-valuation. This appears to be the procedure prescribed by the respondent-University.
17. The above procedure appears to be very obnoxious and seems to serve as a deterrent for students seeking re-valuation. While I do not find fault with the prescription of two steps, one for viewing the answer book in the presence of the faculty member and another for re-valuation, I am unable to appreciate the cost involved. There is no fair deal in prescribing Rs.5,000/- for viewing and Rs.10,000/- for re-valuation. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [(2011) 8 SCC 497], the candidates are entitled even to seek a xerox copy of their answer books under the Right to Information Act. Therefore, to prescribe that the candidate should pay Rs.5,000/- for viewing and thereafter, pay Rs.10,000/- for re-valuation, is nothing but commercial exploitation.
18. Having said that, I should point out that the above observations are confined only to the monetary aspects. I cannot find fault with the two tier mechanism provided for re-valuation, since it does not appear to be arbitrary. There is one more reason for my coming to the above conclusion. It is stated by Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel for the respondent-University that the papers are valued by external examiners and that therefore, the chances for any arbitrary exercise of power was reduced to the minimum.
19. In the case on hand, all the petitioners herein were permitted to view the answer papers. According to the learned senior counsel for the respondent-University, the answer books were viewed by the candidates in the presence of a faculty member and that the faculty members found that even the marks already awarded are on the higher side. Therefore, they did not recommend for re-valuation. However, it is contended by Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the faculty members were not present when the candidates viewed the answer books. In view of this contention, I directed the respondent-University to produce the answer books. The sheets attached to the answer books contain the signatures of the faculty members. There is no proof to show that the candidates viewed the answer books in the absence of the faculty members and that only subsequently, the faculty members put their signatures. Such an extreme finding I cannot give, without holding a roving enquiry. In these matters, it is not possible for the Court to conduct roving enquiries.