Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In view of the dramatically opposite affidavits from two sets of students, as also of the wholly new plea taken by Mr. Umesh Shandilya, learned counsel for the Petitioners, that the allocation of marks in the practical examination of 25 marks was not conducted as per the prescribed norms, the Respondent No.1 was granted an opportunity to file an affidavit dealing with the aforesaid contention of the Petitioners, which has since been filed vehemently denying the aforesaid plea.

9. Mr. Shandilya vehemently contends that as per the prescribed format, the 25 marks earmarked for the practical examination, were to be divided under three heads namely Practical (10 marks), viva-voce (10 marks) and Record Book (5 marks). However, he contends the Examiners had, in a wholly arbitrary manner, awarded no marks for the Record Book while awarding 10 marks each for the two practical events and merely 5 marks for the viva-voce. He, thus, contends that the Petitioners have been gravely prejudiced only because the Respondents have failed to adhere to the norms laid down for awarding marks and have divided the same into different heads as per their own ipse dixit.

10. On the other hand, Mr Rupal, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 while opposing the petition, submits that the practical examination was conducted strictly as per the applicable rules and contends that out of 105 students who appeared therein, a total of 18 students had failed but only the eight Petitioners have challenged the same on wholly imaginary and baseless grounds.

11. Mr. Rupal submits that the Petitioners' plea that there was a requirement to trifurcate the marks for the practical examination into three sub-heads of 10 marks for practical, 10 marks for viva-voce and 5 marks for the Record Book, is wholly without any basis. He submits that there is no such requirement of trifurcation of marks either in the syllabus or in any other guidelines applicable to the subject degree course. He contends that reliance of the Petitioners on the syllabus applicable to the BA course, where Physical Education is one of the subjects, is wholly misplaced. He submits that the Examiners had, keeping in view the nature of the course, adopted a rational basis to divide the marks in the manner deemed appropriate for the Concerned Subject and there was nothing arbitrary about assigning 10 marks each to two sports events while reserving 5 marks for viva-voce, in the practical examination for students seeking a specialized degree in Physical Education, Health and Sports.

20. I also do not find anything arbitrary on the part of the examiners in allocating 10 marks each to two field events and in reserving 5 marks for the viva-voce, while conducting practical examination of students undergoing a specialized Degree in Physical Education, Health and Sports. In the absence of any specific scheme for allocation of marks provided in the ordinance or the syllabus, it was open for the Examiners, who are the best experts in the subject, to decide as to how the marks of the practical examination should be bifurcated. I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the wisdom of the examiners in this respect.