Petitioner challenged University rules preventing the incorporation of re-evaluation marks when the difference was below 15% of maximum marks. Court held rules valid and dismissed petition as difference did not meet threshold.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 278 of 2018
Petitioner :- Aditi Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hausihla Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey
Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Rohit Pandey for respondents 2 to 5.
The petitioner had appeared in B.Com (Part II) Examination, 2016 as regular student with Roll No.0519862. In the Company Law Paper, the petitioner had secured 48 marks out of 100 marks. She applied for re-evaluation (challenge evaluation). In the re-evaluation, the petitioner secured 59 marks. But they were not incorporated in her result on account of impugned clauses (iv) and (v) contained in the press notification issued by the University which provided for reevaluation (challenge evaluation). According to the said clauses marks obtained on re-evaluation can be incorporated in the result only if the difference between the re-evaluated marks and the original marks obtained is more than 15% of the maximum marks obtainable in the paper. As the maximum marks obtainable in the paper were 100, the difference of 11 marks in between the two evaluations, being less than 15% of the maximum marks, the re-evaluation marks were not incorporated by the University in the result.
The impugned Clause (iv) and (v) of press notification issued by Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur, dated 20th May, 2016, are extracted below :
"iv. ;fn ewy ewY;kadudrkZ }kjk iznku fd, x, vadks rFkk nksuksa pSysat ewY;kadudrkZvksa }kjk fn;s x;s vadksa ds vkSlr dk
2
vUrj iz'ui= ds vf/kdre izkIrkdksa ds 15 % rd ik;k tk,xk rks ewy ewY;kadudrkZ }kjk iznku fd, x, vadksa esa ifjorZu ugha fd;k tk;sxk rFkk Nk= }kjk tek 'kqYd tCr dj fy;k tk,xkA
v. ;fn ewy ewY;kadudrkZ }kjk iznku fd, x, vadksa rFkk nksuksa pSyst ewY;kdudrkZvksa }kjk fn, x, vadks ds a vkSlr dk vUrj iz'ui= ds vf/kdre izkIrkadks ds 15 % ls vf/kd ,oa 25 % rd ik;k tk,xk rks ewy ewY;kadudrkZ }kjk iznku fd, x, vadksa dks nksuksa pSysat ewY;kadudrkZvksa }kjk fn, x, vadks ls cny fn;k tk,xkA ,slh fLFkfr esa Nk= }kjk tek 'kqYd ls :0 500@& dh dVkSrh dj 'ks"k jkf'k mls okil dj nh tk,xh rFkk ewY;kadudrkZ ds f[kykQ fo'ofo|ky; }kjk psrkouh nh tk ldrh gSA "
Though the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid clauses but the learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the said clauses were arbitrary or illegal in any manner. More over, it is well settled legal principle that there can be no inherent right for re-evaluation of answer scripts. Re-evaluation can be obtained only if it is permissible under the rules. Providing for incorporation of challenge evaluation marks only if the difference is to the extent of 15% or more of the maximum marks is within the domain of the University and has a rationale behind it which is that no two examiners would provide identical marks on evaluation therefore unless the difference is substantial it cannot be accepted that the earlier evaluation was improper.
Sri H.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the alternative sought to argue that true interpretation of clauses (iv) and (v) would be that variation of less than 15% with the marks earlier obtained is not to be recognised. He has submitted that since the marks obtained by the petitioner on reevaluation were 59 which is higher by more than 20% than marks earlier provided, the re-evaluation marks should be incorporated in the result.
To buttress the above submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on subsequent clarificatory
3
notification/office order dated 26th November, 2016 which replaced the word "Adhiktam Praptank" with word "Purnank".
It has been submitted that the replacement of the words “Adhiktam Praptank” with “Purnank” would suggest that clause (iv) and (v) of the press notification dated 20th May, 2016 dealt with marks obtained and not the maximum marks which could be obtained. It has been submitted that the amendment would be applicable prospectively and would not apply to the examination already held.
In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that since the difference between marks provided to the petitioner in the challenge evaluation and the marks originally awarded is more than 15%, the challenge evaluation marks must be incorporated in the result.
Sri Rohit Pandey, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent-university, submitted that the word used "Adhiktam Praptank" means the maximum marks which could be obtained. That is the maximum marks for which examination has been held. It has been submitted that since examination was held for 100 marks, 15% of 100 marks would be 15 marks. Under the circumstances if in challenge evaluation a candidate secure marks which are higher or lower by 15 or more marks than earlier awarded then only the challenge evaluation marks can be adopted/awarded. It has been submitted that since, in the instant case, the difference was less than 15, the University was legally justified in not accepting the challenge evaluation marks. It has been submitted that the subsequent clarificatory notification/ order dated 26th November, 2016 does not create any new position but ensures that there is no confusion in interpretation of the earlier notification.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival
4
submissions.
The word used "Adhiktam Praptank" has to be read in the context in which it has been used in clause (iv) and (v) of the notification dated 20th May, 2016. Clause (iv) and (v) of the notification uses the words "Prashna Patra Ke Adhiktam Praptank", which means maximum marks obtainable in the question paper. If it was meant to indicate the marks obtained in the paper, then the word “Adhiktam” (maximum) would not have been used. Under the circumstances, since the question paper was for 100 marks, 15% of it would be 15 marks. Therefore only when the difference in the challenge evaluation marks with the original marks is higher by 15 marks the University is required to incorporate the challenge evaluation marks in the result. It may be observed that a similar reevaluation clause had come before apex court in the case of Sayyed Aqueel Arif v. University of Pune, (2003) 12 SCC 724, where the apex court had also taken a similar view as has been taken here.
As admittedly the marks obtained in the challenge evaluation is not higher by 15 marks or more than earlier provided to the petitioner, the University was justified in not incorporating the challenge evaluation marks.
So far as the notification/ order dated 26th November, 2016 is concerned, that does not alter the position but only clarifies the earlier notification so as to obviate any misinterpretation of the existing clause therefore it cannot be used as an external aid to interpret the earlier notification.
The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2018. Rks.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the University's refusal to incorporate re-evaluation marks when the difference was less than 15% of maximum marks violates legal principles or natural justice.
Whether a subsequent clarificatory notification can be used to reinterpret an earlier press notification that allegedly applied to the petitioner's examination.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sayyed Aqueel Arif v. University of PuneExplained¶24
Sayyed Aqueel Arif v. University of Pune, (2003) 12 SCC 724 · Who else cites this
Aditi Pandey
State Of U.P.
Manoj Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
