Smt. Aseena Abubaker vs The Vice Chancellor, The Principal and Controller of Examinations

P.N. Ravindran, J.—The petitioner was a regular student of Government College, Kottayam for the B.Sc. Degree course in Botany during the period 2002-2005. She appeared for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd year examinations at one sitting in April-May, 2005. Along with other papers, she appeared for Part I English, Papers II and III of the 2nd year B.Sc. Degree examination. When the result of the 2nd year examination was not published, the petitioner made enquiries and thereafter submitted representations. Long after the examination was held, on being alerted about the petitioner''s complaint, the University made enquiries and came to know that the petitioner''s answer scripts relating to Part I English Papers II and III were missing from the Centralised Valuation Camp. The Syndicate of the University that met on 17.10.2007 considered this issue and resolved to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter and to take disciplinary action against those responsible for the loss of answer scripts. The Syndicate also permitted the petitioner to appear for the examination held in December, 2007 without collecting any fee from her. The decision of the Syndicate was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P1 letter dated 23.11.2007. Since the examinations in Part I English Papers II and III were held on 31.12.2007 and 1.1.2008, for want of time to prepare, the petitioner did not appear for the said examination. This writ petition was thereafter filed seeking a direction to the respondents to publish the results of the 2nd year B.Sc. Degree examination for which the petitioner had appeared in April-May, 2005. After this writ petition was filed, the standing committee of Syndicate of the University on Examinations met on 27.8.2008 and resolved to permit the petitioner to appear for the examination scheduled to be held on 17.9.2008 and 18.9.2008. However, as in the earlier occasion since there was no time gap between the date of the decision and the date of the examination, the petitioner could not avail the said opportunity.

The University has filed a counter affidavit stating that notwithstanding earnest efforts, the answer scripts of the petitioner could not be traced out and that such being the situation, the University can only permit the petitioner to appear for Part I English Papers II and III as per the scheme and syllabi which was in force during the academic years 2002-2005.

Paragraph 8.6.13 of Chapter 8 of Examination Manual published by the Mahatma Gandhi University reads as follows:

8.6.13. In the case of answer books valued in the Centralised Valuation Camps, such answer books shall be transferred to the Officer in charge of Answer Scripts for safe custody, as soon as the camps are closed. These answer books shall be serially bundled and sealed subject/paper wise by the Administrative Officer and other employees in the C.V. Camp. Each bundle shall be serially numbered. A label giving the name of the examination, name of the subject/paper, number of answer books. Reg. Nos. of the answer books in the bundle, etc. shall be attached to each bundle both inside and outside. The answer books in the bundle shall be retrieved for revaluation only in the presence of one of the staff members who was employed in the respective CV Camp. If an answer book is missing, all the staff members employed in the respective camp shall be jointly and severally liable for the lapse. A fine of Rs. 5,000/- per paper shall be imposed on them. The punishment may also include imposing censure/suspension. In the case of consequent litigation, the liability to pay compensation if any, to the candidate as ordered by the court/competent authority shall be fixed on the officers/employees concerned.

As per the manual prescribed by the University where answer scripts are missing from Centralised Valuation Camp, the University is bound to take action against the officers responsible for the loss of answer scripts. The University is also entitled to levy Rs. 5,000/= per paper from the persons responsible for the lapses. It is also stipulated that where the University is held liable to pay compensation, the officers responsible for the loss of answer scripts will be liable to pay compensation as ordered by the court or competent authority. Paragraph 8.6.12.5 provides that where the answer book is not traceable, the candidate may be given another opportunity to write the examination in the missing paper, in accordance with the same scheme and syllabi without charging the examination fee.

It is thus evident from the Examination Manual prepared by the University that where answer scripts are missing, the candidate is entitled to appear for the examination in the missing papers in accordance with the same scheme and syllabi without paying examination fee. The University is also bound to take action against the officers responsible for loss of answer scripts and to realise fine from them. In the instant case, though the University has stated that action was initiated against the officers responsible, the identity of the persons responsible for the loss of answer scripts is not disclosed. The University has not also disclosed the nature of the action taken against them and the punishment imposed. The University has also not stated whether fine at the rate of Rs. 5,000/= per paper was imposed and realised from them. The University has only given the petitioner two opportunities to write the examination. But, on both the occasions, for want of time the petitioner could not appear for the examination. In such circumstances, having regard to the admitted facts of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

i) The Mahatma Gandhi University shall permit the petitioner to appear for Part I English Papers II and III of the 2nd year B.Sc. Degree Examination in Botany along with the current batch of students in the examination scheduled to be held in April/May, 2010 on the petitioner submitting an application for registration accompanied by a certified copy of this judgment. The University shall waive the payment of examination fee, register the petitioner to appear for the examination and send the hall ticket to the Principal of the College which the petitioner choses as her centre. The petitioner shall without fail avail this opportunity and appear in the said examination failing which the University will not be bound to permit her to appear for the examination without payment of fees.

ii) The University shall take steps in accordance with paragraph 8.6.13 of Chapter 8 of the Examination Manual against the officers responsible for the loss of answer scripts including imposition of fine at the rates stipulated therein. Action in that regard shall be taken and completed within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

iii) The University shall after the fine amount is realised from the persons responsible for the loss of the petitioner''s answer scripts pay over the sum of Rs. 5,000/= to the petitioner by way of costs. It is clarified that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the petitioner from instituting appropriate proceedings in the competent court claiming compensation.