Vishnu Prasad Sharma vs Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and Others

Alok Sharma, J.—Both these petitions agitate a common question and are being decided together. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13489/2014 is being taken as the lead case.

The case set up by the petitioner is that as a student of B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV, he wrote the examination therein in June, 2014. On the result being declared, he failed in two papers i.e. Nursing Research and Statistics and Management of Nursing Service. Reevaluation as provided for in the governing Ordinances in both the papers was sought, whereupon the petitioner was found have passed in the paper of Management of Nursing Service, yet again failed in the paper of Nursing Research and Statistics. The petitioner now sought his answer-sheet in the paper of Nursing Research and Statistics, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter "RTI Act, 2005") and obtained a photocopy.

The case of the petitioner is that he has been unfairly marked in the aforesaid paper of Nursing Research and Statistics and not awarded the correct marks and in the event of his answers to the various questions attempted in the aforesaid paper of Nursing Research and Statistics were fairly marked, he would have secured higher marks and passed the said paper. Terming the assessment of his answer-sheet in the paper in issue as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to invoke its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction for doing, what the petitioner terms, justice to him in directing a rechecking of his answer-sheet in Nursing Research and Statistics B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV.

Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondent- Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, the examining body. It is denied that the answer-sheet of the petitioner in the paper of Nursing Research and Statistics in B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV was not properly examined. It has been submitted that the examiner had examined all the questions attempted by the petitioner in the paper in issue and awarded marks on his evaluation for each of the answers as reflected in the title page of the answer-sheet in terms of the guidelines of the respondent-University. It has been submitted that the petitioner, in the subject of Nursing Research and Statistics in B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV, attempted four descriptive questions i.e. question Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 and one Partwise question (Short Note) comprising of four optional sub-questions and has been marked in each of questions as under:

No question answered by the petitioner in the paper in issue was left un-assessed by the examiner. It has been submitted that the access to answer-sheet by the students of the respondent-University under the RTI Act, 2005 does not confer any cause of action with regard to the manner of assessment of such answer-sheet. Reference has been made to Clause-12 of the Instructions/Guidelines of the University for obtaining certified copies of the answer book from the University under the RTI Act, 2005 wherein it has been provided that "no complaint regarding the assessment of the answer book by the examiner shall be entertained." It has been submitted that if a rechecking of the answer-sheet marked by the University were to be directed by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would open a pandora''s box and make declaration of final result impossible leading to the collapse of the University system itself. It is submitted that aside of tossing the matter of the petitioner''s proficiency in a subject to the jurisdiction of this Court which has no expertise as that of examiners in the particular subject, the petitioner has no actionable cause of action. It has been submitted that no mala fide has been alleged in the petition, nor in fact could have been because neither does the petitioner have any knowledge about the examiner nor the examiner in terms of the secrecy adopted in the course of evaluation of answer-sheet is aware of the student, he is evaluating. It has been further submitted that in terms of Instructions/Guidelines issued by the University to its examiners, it has been provided that the examiner fill up the marks obtained by the examinee in answer to each question on the title page of the answer book. Each independent question answered is to be marked separately as a whole because such question pertains to a part of the syllabus and even where manner of marking such question is indicated in the question, it is only for the guidance of the students to accordingly lay varying emphasis on the various aspects of the question being answered and not an indication that a question otherwise one whole would be marked in separate parts. It is submitted that where separate marks for different parts of a question are to be awarded, it is so clearly indicated with the question divided into various subparts unrelated to each other and relating to different parts of the syllabus relevant for the examination in question. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition is obviously a misuse of the salutary jurisdiction of this Court, the issue agitated not justiciable, lacking in cause of action, completely misdirected and deserving of dismissal.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-University.

The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is without doubt wide, yet it has to be judicially exercised. This Court cannot intrude into fields best left to experts. The examining of an answer-sheet, it goes without saying, it is a matter for an expert in the subject concerned and evaluation remains a matter of his absolute assessment unless the governing Ordinance otherwise provides. There is no way that the Court can sit as if in appeal over the decision of an expert such as an examiner evaluating an answer-sheet. Increasingly academic matters are being brought to the Courts but only in cases of egregious mischief, mala fides ex facie errors which shock the conscience of the Court or in cases of contravention of statutory provisions that the Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in academic matters. The Court can deal with the processes of the examination not its contents and evaluation. The assessment of an answer-sheet is the matter of subjective evaluation of an examiner and cannot even remotely fall within the jurisdiction of this Court. There is no substance in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that where in a descriptive question, marks to be awarded are indicated in the question itself to indicate emphasis on the various aspects of the question, marking has to be broken up by the examiner and answer to the question marked as in a question with sub-parts. Counsel for the respondents-University has rightly submitted that the marks to a full question where indicated broadly with reference to different aspects of the question are only for the guidance of the students and emphasises that is to put to various aspects of the question to be answered. The examiner cannot in such a situation take the whole question to be broken up into the sub-parts and mark separately such sub-parts. It is evident from the submissions of the counsel for the University that where a question is specifically divided in sub-parts as by way of illustration in (a) (b) (c) (d) of question 4 of the such paper in issue, marking is to be done separately for each of the subparts as such sub-parts relate to separate parts of the syllabus and the answer is not integrated as a whole. This has also been done in the instant case of the petitioner while evaluating his answer to question No. 4. The merit of the answers of the petitioner to other questions in the paper of Nursing Research and Statistics has been evaluated by the examiner as a whole as warranted. No provision for rechecking of the answer-sheet under the governing Ordinances/Regulations of RUHS has been pointed out. The right of reevaluation or rechecking of an answer-sheet of a student is not a common law or equitable right but a statutory right. No such right obtains in the present case. It is not for this Court to second guess the worth of the petitioner''s answers to the questions attempted by him in the aforesaid paper of Nursing Research and Statistics.

The writ petition is without merit, baseless and completely misdirected. Dismissed.

Stay application also stands dismissed.

This order will also apply to SBCWP No. 1022/2015. Also dismissed.