Soorya R Chandran v. Calicut University and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji
Judgment Date: 2023-08-11
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition is allowed; the petitioner is declared to have passed the subject 'Fundamentals of Investments' with 40 marks based on the revaluation results and correction of the answer key.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; petitioner passed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Soorya R Chandran

Respondents

Calicut University, Thenhipalam, Calicut University P.O represented by its Registrar
Director, School of Distance Education, University of Calicut
Controller of Examinations, University of Calicut, Pareeksha Bhavan, Calicut University P.O

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. M. Raman Kartha
• Manju R. Kartha
• M.S. Soujath
• Syama Mohan
• Revathy M.A.
• Greeshma T.G.
• Sneha Brigit Prince

Counsels for Respondents

• P. C Sasidharan SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the supplementary examinations results for the Bachelor of Commerce course conducted by the University of Calicut’s School of Distance Education. The petitioner, Soorya R Chandran, who completed the B.Com in 2018-21, had a backlog of four papers in the fifth semester and appeared for supplementary examinations in November 2021. In the paper Fundamentals of Investments, she initially scored 38 marks—two marks short of the passing threshold of 40. She sought revaluation on 29.06.2022, and obtained copies of the question paper, answers, and the answer key. On comparison, two MCQ questions (Nos. 2 and 5) were found to have been erroneously valued; the correct answers per the key were MCX stock exchange and None of these, respectively. If those questions were revalued, the internal marks would become 11, altering the total marks to 40 (11 + 29). The respondents contended that even after revaluation, total marks would still not yield a passing score when internal Part I (9) and external (26) are combined, totaling 35, or 37 with the corrected 11 marks for questions 2 and 5; thus the candidate could not pass. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision (Ran Vijay Singh v State of U.P.) holding that courts may examine the answer key and presume its correctness in certain contexts. The Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner passed with 40 marks on revaluation and declared the subject passed.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of correctness of answer keys in examinations
Jurisdiction of the Court to examine the correctness of key answers; benefit to examination authority unless doubt arises

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that two MCQ questions (Nos. 2 and 5) were incorrectly valued; the correct answers per Ext.P5 are 'MCX stock exchange' and 'None of these'. By revaluing these questions, the internal marks would become 11, making the total 40 (11 + 29). The petitioner relies on Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) for court authority to examine the answer key and grant relief in such circumstances; the writ should be allowed and she should be declared to have passed the subject.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the revaluation results (9 internal, 26 external) show no passing score; even with the corrected internal marks (11), the total would be 37; the examination board's assessment should stand; no change should be made.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.	2018(1) KLT SN 16 (C. No.23)n SC.	Positive	Court relied on the Supreme Court's presumption of correctness of answer keys and jurisdiction to examine key answers; the Kerala High Court followed this principle to adjust internal marks.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 15226 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SOORYA R CHANDRAN AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. RAMACHANDRAN ANANDABHAVAN, THIRUVEGAPURA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679304 BY ADVS. T.M.RAMAN KARTHA MANJU R. KARTHA M.S.SOUJATH SYAMA MOHAN REVATHY M.A. GREESHMA T.G. SNEHA BRIGIT PRINCE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1CALICUT UNIVERSITY THENHIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN - 673635 2DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, PIN - 673635 3CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, PIN - 673635 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` P. C SASIDHARAN SC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) NO. 15226 OF 2023 -2- ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 11[th] day of August, 2023) The petitioner registered for the Bachelor of Commerce course conducted by the 2[nd] respondent and completed the course during 2018-21. On completion of the course, she had backlog of four papers in the 5[th] semester and she attended the supplementary examinations in November 2021. For the paper ‘Fundamentals of Investments’, she only got 38 marks, but the minimum required is 40 marks. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 supplementary examinations result, the petitioner applied for the revaluation of the answer sheets of the paper ‘Fundamentals of Investments’ on 29.06.2022. As part of the revaluation, the petitioner obtained copies of the questions paper, WP(C) NO. 15226 OF 2023 -3- answer sheets, and answer keys for the paper ‘Fundamentals of Investments’. 3. On comparison of the same, the petitioner came to know that, question nos.2 and 5 in the Multiple Choice Questions, were correctly answered, but was erroneously valued as wrong. Question no.2 is ‘The latest stock market to come up in India is’. The petitioner answered it as ‘MCX stock exchange’. Going by Ext.P5 the answer key, the answer to the said question is also ‘MCX stock exchange’. But the petitioner was not given the marks for the said question. Question no.5 is ‘Stock exchange is a place where:’ As per the options given, the correct answer is ‘None of these’. Ext.P5-answer key also shows that the answer is ‘None of these’ and the petitioner also answered WP(C) NO. 15226 OF 2023 -4- the same as ‘None of these’ which can be seen from Ext.P4 itself. 4. Thus, the petitioner ought to have been given one mark each for questions nos. 2 and 5. The petitioner points out that as per Ext.P2, the petitioner applied for revaluation, and the results were issued as per Ext.P7- consolidated grade marks. A perusal of Ext.P7, specifically semester-V paper ‘Fundamentals of Investments’, shows that the petitioner has awarded 9 marks for IA and 29 marks for ESE. Therefore, even going by Ext.P7, the petitioner could not obtain the minimum 40 marks to pass. But since question nos. 2 and 5 are treated as correct answers, the internal examination marks will have to be changed to 11. WP(C) NO. 15226 OF 2023 -5- Since there is no change in the external marks 29 as per Ext.P7 , the total marks will come to 11 + 29 = 40. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, wherein it is submitted that the petitioner has undergone UG Programme in B.Com during the year 201821 under the School of Distance of Education, and she applied for revaluation, scrutiny, and photocopy of the answer script of the paper ‘Fundamentals of Investments’. The revaluation results were published on 22.10.2022. As per the result, she has awarded 9 marks for Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) (Internal Mark) and 26 marks for external mark. As per the first valuation, the MCQ mark was 9 and external mark was 29. Hence the results was announced as WP(C) NO. 15226 OF 2023 -6- ‘no change’ and issued the photocopy of the answer scripts for verification. 6. The counsel for respondents also submits that as the entire answer sheets is taken as one, the revaluation is done, and in the revaluation results, the petitioner has scored only 26 marks for the descriptive part which consists of Part II and III. But as far as Part I is concerned, she has obtained only 9 marks. Even if it is admitted that question nos. 2 and 5 is correctly written by the petitioner, and awarded 11 marks, the petitioner will not pass, because the total marks can only be taken as 11 +26 = 37. Therefore, the petitioner will not pass the examination. 7. Ext.P7 is a consolidated mark list issued by the University after the revaluation. It is only shows that the WP(C) NO. 15226 OF 2023 -7- external marks as 29 and the internal mark as 9, so the total mark is- 29+9=38. As stated above, question nos.2 and 5 in part I of the paper is wrongly valued by the examiner. In view of the answer key, the petitioner is entitled to get 2 marks for question nos.2 and 5. Thus the internal marks of the petitioner is to be reckoned as 11. Since there is no change in the mark of the other parts in Ext.P7 it is taken as 29, the petitioner will surely succeed and pass out of the examinations, as the total mark would be 40. 8. The counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in _Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P_[1] wherein, the Apex Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Court to examine the correctness of key answers to questions in a written examination for recruitment and the Court should 1 2018(1) KLT SN 16 (C. No.23)n SC. WP(C) NO. 15226 OF 2023 -8- presume the correctness of key answers and proceed on that basis. In case of a doubt the benefit should go to the examination authority and not to the candidate. Therefore, this Court is justified in looking into the answer key and awarding marks to the petitioner in Part I. 9. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled to 11 marks in the internal examination and 29 for the external examination. Hence, it is declared that the petitioner has passed the subject ‘Fundamentals of Investments’ with 40 marks, going by the revaluation results and the marks in part I. Writ petition is allowed as indicated above. Sd/- **BASANT BALAJI JUDGE** JS WP(C) NO. 15226 OF 2023 -9- ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15226/2023`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`| |---|---| |`Exhibit P1`|`THE RESULTS OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE`| ||`SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATION HELD IN 2021`| |`Exhibit P2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF REVALUATION`| ||`REGISTRATION SUBMITTED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONER`| |`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE COPY THE OF THE QUESTION PAPER`| ||`NO.D 10027-A OF THE 5TH SEMESTER UG`| ||`DEGREE EXAMINATION , NOV.2021 OF THE`| ||`PAPER FINANCE SPECIALISATION-II-`| ||`FUNDAMENTALS OF INVESTMENT`| |`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF`| ||`QUESTION PAPER NO.D 10027-A OF THE 5TH`| ||`SEMESTER UG DEGREE EXAMINATION ,`| ||`NOV.2021 OF THE PAPER FINANCE`| ||`SPECIALISATION-II- FUNDAMENTALS OF`| ||`INVESTMENT`| |`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONS BANK AND`| ||`ANSWER KEY PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit P6`|`REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON`| ||`25.12.2022`| |`Exhibit P7`|`CONSOLIDATED GRADE CARD DATED`| ||`28.12.2022 TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD`| ||`RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit P8`|`REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRO-VICE`| ||`CHANCELLOR OF THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY ON`| ||`18.01.2023`| |`Exhibit P9`|`REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON`| ||`16.02.2023 PRAYING FOR CORRECTING THE`| ||`MISTAKE IN REVALUATION`| |`Exhibit P10`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED`| ||`30.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT`|