S. Bhaskar vs Gulbarga University

Hari Nath Tilhari, J

By this Petition, the petitioner has sought for Writ of Certiorari quashing the Endorsement dated 17-2-1994 bearing No. GUG/EXAM/ B.Sc.II/93-94/10773 issued by the Respondent-University copy of which Annexure-B to the Writ Petition to the effect that ''there is no provision of revaluation of papers, hence, the application is returned herewith''. The petitioner has further prayed for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to Respondent to revalue the petitioner''s Mathematics paper of B.Sc.II Year Examination held in October 1993. The facts of the case in brief are: that the petitioner appeared in II Year B.Sc. Examination conducted by the Respondent-University in October 93 and the petitioner appeared in all the five papers. He scored good marks in other papers but failed in the subject of Mathematics scoring 31 marks out of 150 in which the minimum marks prescribed is 52. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had done well in all the five subjects but failed in the subject of Mathematics. The petitioner annexed his Marks Sheet dated 16-12-1993 as Annexure-B. The petitioner further submits that he was confident of scoring pass marks and so applied for revaluation of the said paper by remitting the necessary fee with an application, dated 15-1-1994. According to the petitioner, no revaluation has been done and his application has been returned vide Annexure-B dated 17-2-1994 with an observation by the University Authorities that there is no provision for revaluation and so application is returned. Having felt aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this Petition challenging the validity of the provisions and the Statutes of the University. According to the Statute, the petitioner is entitled for revaluation of the paper. University authorities are bound to revalue the papers provided application is made with the prayer for revaluation and depositing of prescribed fee for that purpose within the stipulated period. The petitioner submits that there is provision for revaluation of papers by filing the written answer scripts. But only exception is in respect of cases where there is double evaluation of the same subject.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University submits that with regard to the filing of the counter affidavit, that he has not filed the same on account of the prevailing statute. He does not deny the fact that the petitioner had appeared in B.Sc. II Year Examination and he has failed in one subject thereunder. He said that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had appeared for B.Sc. II Year Examination in Oct.''93 and has passed in all subjects other than Mathematics and failed in the subject of Mathematics. These facts being admitted, the petitioner had appeared for B.Sc. II Year Examination in Oct.''93 and he had failed in the paper of Mathematics as well that he had applied for revaluation and his application has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision for revaluation. The only question for this Court to consider is whether there is any provision in the Act or any Statutes pertaining to revaluation and as to time limit to claim revaluation.

I have heard Sri G.R. Gurumath, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.S. Koti, learned Counsel on behalf of the University. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a provision for revaluation under Statute 30 of the University. Statute 30 of the University provides for revaluation and according to that provision there shall be provision for revaluation and the revaluation of the answer scripts at all stages of University Examination except in respect of such cases where system of double evaluation is already in existence in that cases subject to some exceptions provided.

Statute ''30'' of the University reads and is being quoted hereunder in extenso;

"Statute 30: STATUTE GOVERNING RE-VALUATION OF ANSWER SCRIPTS:

There shall be a provision for revaluation of valued written answer scripts at any of the University Examinations, excepting where there is double valuation subject to the following:

i) Where more than one examiner is assigned for the assessment of the answer scripts of a paper divided into more than one sections, the revaluation shall be done by an examiner from outside the University.

ii) Where a single examiner has assessed the answer scripts of a paper(s), the revaluation shall be done by an examiner from outside the University.

Revaluation shall be confined to theory papers only and this provision shall not be applied to dissertation, practicals, project work, field work, journal, internal assessment, marks, clinical and viva-voce.

A candidate shall apply for re-valuation within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result by the University.

The candidate shall surrender the original statement of marks to the University along with his application for re-valuation.

Application for revaluation shall be in prescribed form (as shown in the Ann-i).

The candidate shall remit a fee of Rs. 100/- per paper in which he seeks revaluation, subject to maximum of 3 papers in one examination. For SC/ST students fee prescribed is Rs. 50/- per paper.

The candidate shall give an undertaking that the result awarded on his application for revaluation is binding on him and that he shall not hold the University responsible for any consequences arising out of such revaluation (undertaking to be incorporated in the application.)

The Vice-Chancellor shall appoint the examiner for revaluation from the panel of examiners prepared by the respective Boards of Studies.

The answer scripts taken for revaluation shall be referred to the examiner(s) appointed for revaluation and to enable him to have an independent assessment of the answer scripts, the original markings in the inner sheets and the front sheet should be suitably marked.

The rates of remuneration payable for revaluation work shall be as shown in Annexure No. 1.

The marks awarded by the Board revaluation shall be final and binding and the result of the candidate shall be corrected accordingly.

The revaluation shall be arranged by the University office under the supervision of the controller of Examinations or shall be got done by and at the place of the examiner by sending papers through post.

Revaluation shall ordinarily be done on the basis of the same scheme of assessment already used for first valuation.

The result of the candidate shall be announced within 40 days from the date of application for revaluation.

In every exceptional cases, the Vice-chancellor is empowered to extend the date of announcement of the result.

xxx xxx xxx 16. xxx xxx xxx "

Statute 30 Clause 12 provides that revaluation shall be arranged by the University office under the supervision of the Controller of Examinations or shall be got done by and at the place of the examiner by sending papers through post. Sub-rule 13 provides that revaluation shall be done ordinarily on the basis of the scheme of assessment already used for first valuation, It is further revealed that Clause 14 provides that the result of the candidate shall be announced within 40 days from the date of application for revaluation. Thus a perusal of Clauses 12, 13 and 14 of the Statutes referred to above, governing the valuation of answer scripts, very clearly reveal that there is provision for revaluation arid there is provision for revaluation of papers in Theory. In my opinion, paper in Mathematics is theory. As to this, I put a question whether the paper in Mathematics is a theory. The Standing Counsel for the University fairly stated that the paper of Maths is a theory paper. He further submits that marks sheet also reveals that the subject of Mathematics is Theory paper only and not practical. It is evident on perusal of the marks sheet also leads to me to hold that the paper of the subject of Mathematics is Theory paper only and it is not like the Practical papers like Biology, Chemistry etc., So, I am of the opinion that the paper of Mathematics can be taken to be one of Theory papers. Nothing has been shown by the learned Counsel for the University to the contrary that it is practical paper and the marks sheet having been placed in that respect. I come to the conclusion that the Mathematics paper is a theory paper and the petitioner has moved his application for revaluation of his theory paper and that being so, the petitioner is entitled for revaluation of his answer scripts. His application for revaluation has wrongly been rejected by the University authorities. In this view of the matter, I hereby hold that the letter dated 17-2-1994, copy of which is Annexure-B, has been issued under signatures of the Registrar (Evaluation) is on the basis of misconception and it is on that basis the opposite party have refused to from the obligation of the revaluation of the answer books of the petitioner for which he is and has been entitled.

Having thus considered, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition as there is refusal or omission to perform the job of revaluation by University Authorities. I find it just and proper that a Writ of Mandamus be issued to the opposite parties directing them to revalue the answer books of the petitioner in respect of the subject of Mathematics of B.Sc.II Year Examination which had been held in Oct.''93 and for which he had applied even. If the petitioner''s application for revaluation has been returned to them, let petitioner refile that or a copy thereof or move fresh application.

Petitioner may apply and move that application within four weeks from today and thereafter within a period of six weeks from the date of service of the order and moving of application, the opposite party should after revaluing the papers declare the petitioner''s result on the basis of the revaluation.