W.A. No. 698 of 2014 in WP(C) No.10735/2014

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2014/1ST JYAISHTA, 1936** **WA.No. 698 of 2014 () IN WP(C).10735/2014 -------------------------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10735/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 11-04-2014** **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: -----------------------** **SRUTHI RAJAGOPAL.A., FLAT 1 B" LAUREL GROVE, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD, VYTTILA COCHIN - 682 019.** **BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **--------------------------** **1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM PIN 688 560.** **2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN 688 560.** **R BY DR.P.LEELAKRISHNAN, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-** **2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **AL/-** ## **MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & P.V ASHA, J.** ----------------------------------------------------W.A No.698 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of May, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Asha J.** Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. She completed B. Tech Degree Course in Electronics and Communication Engineering under the Mahatma Gandhi University, during 2009- 2013. She appeared in the B.Tech Degree supplementary examination conducted in May 2013 and could obtain only 21 marks out of 100 in the Subject Engineering Mechanics. On revaluation, the marks awarded in that paper increased to 27. The minimum marks prescribed for pass in the subject is 40% for external examination and 50% in aggregate. Therefore she could not qualify in the degree examination, though she could secure a total of 73.77% marks in all the eight semesters. Dissatisfied with the results of revaluation, she obtained a copy of her answer book from the University and got it valued by a Professor in a professional college, who awarded her 52 marks. Relying on the marks awarded on such valuation by an outside agency, she approached the University with the 2 W.A No.698 of 2014 request for second revaluation, asserting that three of her answers were not valued and that she got very high marks in all the other subjects and examinations. The writ petition was filed at this stage seeking directions to the University to get her answer paper revalued again. 2. After elaborate consideration of the pleadings and contentions on either side, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal is filed claiming second revaluation, relying on the marks awarded to her by the outside expert, producing the copy of the answer paper valued by him, as Annexure A1. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. The learned Standing counsel for the University, while supporting the impugned judgment, furnished a copy of the relevant Regulations issued by the University. 4. Revaluation and scrutiny of answer papers are governed by `Mahatma Gandhi University Regulations relating to Revaluation and Scrutiny of Answer scripts' approved by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of powers under Section 10(17) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985. Regulation 14 3 W.A No.698 of 2014 thereof reads as follows: “14. Finalising the results of Revaluation (When marks are changed): 1. If the change in marks/grade points awarded on revaluation is **between 5% and 9.99%** of the maximum marks, the marks awarded on revaluation shall be taken as final. 2. If the increase in marks on revaluation is **greater than or equal to 10% but less than or equal to 25%** of the maximum marks of the paper **a second revaluation** shall be conducted. If the change in marks after the **second revaluation is less than or equal to 25%** of the maximum marks of the paper, the **average of the nearest two** marks from among that of the original valuation, first revaluation and second revaluation, shall be awarded to the candidate. If the difference between the three valuations, i.e. original valuation, I revaluation and II revaluation marks one another happens to be the same, the average of **the highest** of the two marks shall be awarded to the candidate. 3. If the change (increase) in marks awarded on the first or second revaluation is **greater than 25%** of the maximum marks of the paper, the script shall be subjected to valuation by a committee of experts, comprising 3 to 5 examiners, constituted by the Controller of Examinations from a List of examiners 4 W.A No.698 of 2014 approved by Vice-Chancellor, and the marks awarded after such valuation shall be final. 4. In any case, the marks after revaluation/expert valuation happens to be less than **the original marks** , the original marks awarded to the candidate **will stand.”** 5. In the present case the difference in marks after revaluation is only 6, as evident from Exhibit P1 and P2. A second revaluation is envisaged under the regulations, only when the change in marks is more than 10%. A student does not have a right to claim second revaluation as long as none of conditions stipulated in the University Regulations is fulfilled and in the absence of any provision in the Regulations providing for the same. Students cannot resort to their own methods for evaluation of their answer papers and seek revaluation or second revaluation based on that, as sought by the appellant, relying on Annexure A1. They cannot seek valuation to be conducted by external agencies/experts unconnected with the University. The high marks obtained in internal examinations or other papers cannot also be the criteria for second revaluation. The learned Single Judge has rightly found that the appellant cannot seek directions from the court to overreach the academic standards 5 W.A No.698 of 2014 prescribed by a competent academic body. 6. The issue regarding revaluation has been discussed at length in the decision reported in **H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur** [(2010) 6 SCC 759] in paragraphs 24 to 26 as follows: “24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Partosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27], wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42. paras 14 & 16). 6 W.A No.698 of 2014 “14. ... It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. ..... * * * 16. ....... The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation- making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.” 25. This view has been approved and relied upon 7 W.A No.698 of 2014 and reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission [(2004) 6 SCC 714] observing as under: (SCC pp. 717-18, para 7) “7. ..... Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks.” A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-UlRehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State, Board of 8 W.A No.698 of 2014 Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, Board of Secondary Education v. D.Suvankar, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences. 26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation. “ 7. In **Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda** [(2004) 13 SCC 383], the Honourable Supreme Court held that in the absence of rules providing for revaluation of answer papers, no direction could be issued for revaluation of the answer books and that in the absence of clear rules on the subject a direction for revaluation of answer books may throw many problems and in the larger public interest, such a direction is to be avoided. 8. It is settled law that courts should normally keep their hands off in issues involving academic matters. (see **Sanchit Banzal Vs Joint Admission Board** [(2012) 1 SCC 157] (para 24 & 25); **All India Council of Technical Education Vs** 9 W.A No.698 of 2014 **Surinder Kumar Dhawan** [(2009) 11 SCC 726] (para 16 & 17). In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the claim of appellant to get her answer paper valued again. No direction can be issued to the University to deviate the procedures laid down in the regulations governing revaluation. Hence the Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Sd/- **Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.** Sd/- **P.V.Asha, Judge.** rtr/22/05