Dismissed

Sri a J James v. Karnataka State Law University

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2023WP/21215/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ mandamus directing the Karnataka State Law University to re-evaluate ten subjects using a specific granular scheme of valuation. The Court held that the University was bound by its own Regulations, which did not permit revaluation when multiple examiners had already valued the papers. Exercising judicial restraint in educational matters, the Court dismissed the petitio

What did the court decide?

No re-evaluation to be conducted; petition dismissed as reliefs sought were contrary to the University's Rules and Regulations.

Sri a J James Vs Karnataka State Law University — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.21215 OF 2021 (EDN-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI A.J.JAMES S/O A.C.JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.576, 4^TH CROSS HMT LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU -560 032

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI A.J.JAMES, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶12

AND:

¶13

KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY REP. BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR NAVANAGAR

¶14

HUBBALLI-580 025

¶15

Digitally 2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) signed by B KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY LAVANYA NAVANAGAR Location: HUBBALLI-580 025 HIGH COURT OF 3. THE REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) KARNATAKA KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR HUBBALLI-580 025

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI GIRISH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS ORDERS ON RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 JOINTLY/SEVERALLY TO EVALUATE AFRESH THE TEN SUBJECTS AS LISTED IN ANNEXURE-C USING THE SCHEME OF VALUATION STIPULATED IN THE KSLU ORDINANCE AND DECLARE THE PETITIONER'S RESULTS AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard petitioner/party-in-person, Sri A.J.James and

¶23

Sri Girish Kumar R., learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶24

The petitioner/party-in-person has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:

¶25

"1. Pass orders on Respondents 1 and 2 jointly/severally to evaluate afresh the TEN subjects listed hereinafter as listed in Annexure C using the Scheme of Valuation stipulated in the KSLU ordinance and declare the Petitioners results:

¶26

SEMESTER I 1. Contract I 2. Law of Torts 3. Criminal Law-I IPC (New syllabus)

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶29

SEMESTER II 1. Contract II 2. Family Law II 3. Administrative Law

¶30

SEMESTER IV 1. Banking Law 2. Public International Law 3. Human Rights Law & Practice

¶31

SEMESTER VI 1. IPR II

¶32

And also correct the typographical error in the internal marks for the subject of "Clinical Course IV" in VI Semester.

¶33

2. Pass any other suitable directions as deemed fit to infuse professionalism, consistency and repeatability in the valuation process including explicitly underlining points in the answer scripts matching with the Scheme of evaluation with a fine granularity of 0.25 (quarter) of mark, publishing scheme of evaluation and also review the need for expensive and discriminatory Challenge Valuation facility."

¶34

It is the case of the petitioner/party-in-person that he

¶35

was admitted to three years LL.B course at Rajiv Gandhi College of Law, Bengaluru, which is affiliated to the Karnataka State Law University, Hubballi (for short, 'KSLU') with registration No.42216101023. The petitioner was admitted to the academic year 2016 to 2019. It is further case of the petitioner that he has invested his time and money for

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶37

undergoing three years of law after fulfilling the academic requirements of KSLU and has taken up all the six semesters exams in all the subjects only once. The petitioner made a representation to respondent-No.1-Vice Chancellor of KSLU vide Annexure-A, wherein he has requested to approve review and award fresh marks to specific papers pertaining to I, II, IV, VI semesters as per the scheme of valuation and further requested the KSLU to publish the scheme of evaluation with break up of marks for each points in order to avoid arbitrary and differentiated expectation across teachers from different educational backgrounds/Universities and many other factors like, grasping of English language.

¶38

3.1 According to the petitioner, he is a retired Scientist with first class in B.E. (1984) from the Government College of Engineering (UVCE), K.R.Circle, Bengaluru and an M.TechManagement (2000) with Distinction from the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, and desired to pursue law degree.

¶39

3.2 It is the contention of the petitioner

¶40

I semester result of the petitioner was shocking as the petitioner passed in the Constitution Law and Hindu Law, but

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶43

failed in IPC, Law of Torts and Contract-I. He further contends that the teachers assessed all five papers and in all five subjects, the petitioner ought to have passed, moreover in Hindu Law paper, the petitioner should have secured more than 50% marks. It is the contention of petitioner that on the advice

¶44

of the Principal, petitioner paid Rs.10,500/- for challenge valuation of all five papers. The petitioner obtained higher marks in Constitutional Law, but failed in Hindu Law by securing only 18 marks which is lower from the original 35 marks, which according to him contrary to his expectation and several teachers. The petitioner contends that he was dejected as he has no insight, feedback or certainty on his performance/ understanding/mastery of the subject nor what is expected from the exam. It is the contention of petitioner that he himself having reasonable administrative experience in Government service and having analysed the results of several colleges found to his utter shock and dismay, only few first class and little more second class awarded by the KSLU. Therefore, he contends that KSLU is mostly producing third class/pass class students, that too 7% to 10% pass rate, un-characteristic of professional education.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶47

3.3 The petitioner further contends that he met one of

¶48

the Professors, who teaches Law of Torts and requested for evaluating the answer scripts and that some of the teachers and professors, whom he had met, acknowledged that the answers were adequate and conservatively marked and hence, it is his contention that he failed even after challenge valuation. However, respondent No.2 stated that there is no provision under the KSLU Ordinance to rectify the same. The petitioner further contends that he meticulously collected all the answer scripts except V semester and exercised the challenge valuation at Rs.2,100/- per subject and revaluation at Rs.500/- per subject both for failed subjects and passed subjects. The petitioner further contends that the KSLU unduly enriching itself by exploiting hapless students through challenge valuation/ revaluation. Since the petitioner failed in ten subjects, he did not attempt to take up the exam again as he was sure of his answer and that he would clear in the challenge valuation and revaluation. Accordingly, he collated the data to seek alternative remedy. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court questioning the scheme of valuation and the evaluation of answer scripts not being conducted in a professional manner,

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶50

and there being lack of professional standards of consistency by arbitrary valuation, thus, denying natural justice to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is questioning the arbitrariness, inconsistency and that the respondent-KSLU violated its own Rules and Regulations and non-adherence of the same and apart from being violation of the Rules and Regulations, it violates the principles of natural justice, thereby causing miscarriage of justice to the petitioner.

¶51

3.4 Therefore, the petitioner seeks that ten subjects, which he has failed, be revalued strictly using scheme of valuation with granular point based marking compliance with the scheme. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks to allow his petition and grant the reliefs as sought for in the prayer.

¶52

3.5 The petitioner/party-in-person has relied on the following decision, in support of his case:

¶53

i) Pranav Verma & Others vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & Anr. [W.P.Nos.565/2019 C/w. WP.Nos.617/2019 & 651/2019, Decided on 13.12.2019].

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶55

Per contra , learned counsel for respondents has filed detailed statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the KSLU being established under the Karnataka State Law Universities Act, 2009 has to regulate the matters like, admission of the students, conducting end semester examinations of all the Law colleges affiliated to it, and while regulating these matters, it is bound to observe the rules and guidelines made by the Bar Council of India, which is the regulatory body of all the institutions of law and accordingly, it has been conducting its activity for the smooth functioning of admissions. He further contends that as per Regulation 5(a) of the three year Regulations, the regular duration to complete the programme is three years from the date of admission to the programme. However, Regulation 14(b) of the three year Regulations provides for extended period of three years to successfully complete the said programme. Therefore, he contends that all the three year Regulations provide for six

¶56

¶57

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶58

years duration to successfully complete three years LL.B

¶59

programme in order to obtain a degree in law.

¶60

4.1 Learned counsel further contends that Regulation 14(c) of the amendment Regulations of the three years Regulations provides for the candidates who does not successfully complete their degree within six years shall be given an extended period of two more consecutive attempts from the date of notification by the University.

¶61

4.2 Learned counsel further contends that as per the revaluation process and methodology, the revaluation of answer scripts is provided in the Ordinance governing the process of re-totaling, revaluation and issuing photo copy of answer scripts and challenge valuation of the Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009, whereby the Regulation 1.3 of the said Ordinance reads as under:

¶62

"1.3. Revaluation will not be applicable to papers, dissertations, practicals, project work etc., which are valued by more than one examiner."

¶63

4.3 Learned counsel further contends that there is no

¶64

provision for revaluation after more than one examiner has

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶67

valued the subject paper. It is further contended that as per clause-1.3.6, if the marks awarded in revaluation differ from the original award, either side by not more than 5% of the maximum marks or paper/subject, the better of the two award shall be accepted as marks awarded after revaluation. Learned counsel further contends that if the marks awarded in the revaluation differ from the original award by more than 15% of the maximum marks of the paper/subject, the said papers shall be got valued by the third valuer appointed by the Vice Chancellor and the average of the third award and one of the earlier two awards nearer to the third or the average of all the three valuation marks shall be taken as final marks awarded to the best advantage of the candidate.

¶68

4.4 Learned counsel further contends that as per the University valuation procedure, before giving answer scripts for valuation, scripts will be shuffled and a dummy number would be given, so that the valuer and the reviewer would check out whether the scripts are properly valued. It is further contended that about 20,000 to 30,000 students taking examination per semester for different subjects includes repeaters and about 1,80,000 to 2,00,000 answer booklets will be received per

¶69

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶70

semester (half yearly) by the University. He further contends that the University has selected about 300 evaluators for the valuation of the answer scripts from affiliated colleges. In order

¶71

to avoid anomaly, the answer scripts which is requested for challenge will be valued by different set of teachers, and if there is marginal improvement in the marks obtained by the petitioner in challenge valuation, it would indicate that the petitioner's answers are not upto the mark. Therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to re-evaluate/re-examine the answer scripts to a third round of evaluation.

¶72

4.5 Learned counsel further contends on the question of challenge valuation of answer scripts that if any complaint to the Vice Chancellor made within three weeks from the date of declaration of results by any responsible person/ candidate to the effect that the students are favoured or disfavoured, the Vice Chancellor may get it reviewed. In order to determine the marks obtained by a candidate at the challenge valuation, if the marks awarded in the challenge valuation are less than the original award, then the original marks be retained and if the marks awarded in the challenge valuation are more than the original award, but less than 20% of the maximum marks for

¶73

12 -

¶74

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶75

the paper/subject when compared to earlier awarded marks, the marks obtained at the challenge valuation would be awarded. In case, where there is a difference between original award and challenge valuation are more than 20% of the maximum marks of the paper/subject, the same would be sent to another examiner for valuation after fresh code number is put on such papers, the candidate would be awarded average of the best two marks awarded.

¶76

4.6 It is further contended that the petitioner has taken examination from 2016 to 2019 and seeking for revaluation and challenge valuation in all semester examinations. But the Regulation of KSLU does not provide for the same. Hence, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶77

4.7 Learned counsel for respondents has relied on the following decisions, in support of his case:

¶78

i) Master Manoj N. vs. State of Karnataka and Others [WP.No.36661/2017 (EDN-RES), Decided on 16.02.2018];

¶79

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶80

ii) Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences vs. Dr.Yerra Trinadh and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1520;

¶81

iii) Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others reported in (2021)2 SCC 309;

¶82

iv) Ms.Chandana B. vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences [WP.No.12989/2022 & connected matters (EDN-RES), Decided on 28.10.2022].

¶83

Having heard the petitioner/party-in-person and learned counsel for respondents, admittedly, in the present case on hand, the petitioner's papers have been valued by more than two valuators. Therefore, the question of revaluation does not arise in such situation in accordance to the Regulation 1.3 of the Ordinance of 2009 pertaining to revaluation of answer scripts. There is no scope for further evaluation as the Rules do not provide for the same. Though the petitioner has several grievances with regard to the professional manner in which the University is functioning on the aspect of conducting the examination, correction of the answer scripts, the

¶84

14 -

¶85

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶86

revaluation process, the examiners appointed for examining the answer scripts, the challenge valuation methodology and whole lot of other aspects, which is questioned by the petitioner in the writ petition, the same cannot be answered in this writ petition as the petitioner is only aggrieved by him not clearing the examinations in ten subject as mentioned in the prayer on the ground of not providing the revaluation and challenge valuation opportunities to the petitioner. The respondent-University has its own Regulation and it is governed by a statute and no direction can be issued by this Court to the respondents not to follow its own Regulations and act contrary to its Rules and Regulations.

¶87

I am in agreement with the learned counsel for respondents that the respondents cannot be directed to go against its own Rules and Regulations and pass an order merely on the asking of the petitioner which is contrary to its Rules and Regulations. In the absence of such provision for revaluation beyond what is provided in the Regulations, this Court cannot direct the respondents to conduct revaluation in favour of the petitioner.

¶88

15 -

¶89

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶90

I am also in agreement with the learned counsel for respondents that in the matters of education and educational standards, so also, in the appointment of examiners in the educational institution by the University or the Colleges, it should be left to the experts in the respective fields to decide as to what is good for the students and the colleges/ Universities rather than this Court making an attempt to get into the shoes of the experts or into the shoes of the Legislatures to frame policies to that effect.

¶91

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences and Dr.Yerra Trinadh and

¶92

Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1520 at para-15 has stated as under:

¶93

"15. In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajsthan [2021(2) SCC 209], after considering catena of decisions on the scope of judicial review with regard to reevaluation of the answer sheets, it is observed and held that the court should not reevaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and the academic matters are best left to the academics."

¶94

16 -

¶95

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶96

The coordinate Bench of this Court in

¶97

WP.No.12989/2022 (EDN-RES) and connected matters by its order dated 28.10.2022 at para-18, has extracted para-6 of the judgment in the case of Moazam Shah Khan and Others v.

¶98

Vice Chencellor, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Others reported in ILR 2002 KAR 1146 , which is also extracted hereunder:

¶99

“ 6. That leaves me with the only other question, namely, whether the Ordinance providing for double valuation suffer from any arbitrariness or irrationality? My answer to the same is also in the negative. The University is entitled to determine how the answer scripts for any given examination should be evaluated and by how many examiners. It may consider evaluation only by one examiner to be sufficient and even in such a case it may not provide for revaluation of the scripts. The students cannot in such a situation claim any inherent right for revaluation of the scripts. Judicial intervention apart, the evaluation made by a single examiner would also be binding on the student. The University may also provide for revaluation and recognise that the evaluation by an examiner may in certain situations be subjective or erratic. It may adopt a third approach as has been done by the University in the instant case. It may instead of

¶100

17 -

¶101

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶102

one examiner conducting the evaluation and the papers being sent for revaluation, provide for evaluation of the answer scripts by two examiners and take the average of the two, as the marks awarded to the candidate. Any such scheme would take care of situations where the marking of the scripts may be alleged to be subjective or erratic. There is no gain said that the element of error in human judgment is considerably lower in cases where the scripts are marked by two examiners independently. Two heads are certainly better than one, given regard to the fact that both have the basic qualifications prescribed for acting as examiners. The fact that double valuation causes any prejudice or that it introduces an element of irrationality in the process of evaluation of the scripts or that the candidates must even after a double valuation be given the right to seek a further valuation by a third examiner has therefore to be rejected. So also the submission that the valuation by one examiner followed by revaluation of another will make any improvement in the situation, must fail for qualitatively there is no difference between a situation where a single examiner evaluates the scripts first followed by a revaluation of the same, and situation in which two examiners independently evaluate the scripts and

¶103

18 - NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶104

the average of the two is awarded to the candidate. "

¶105

In cases of education/examination, it is the domain of

¶106

Legislature to make laws, enact statutes, regulations and ordinances. Expert bodies are constituted to deliberate all eventualities taking into consideration all issues of the colleges, difficulties of the students and the overall welfare and wellbeing of the society at large. It is not for the Courts to enact laws or make regulations, it should be left to the expert bodies to do their job, in which they hold expertise. The Hon'ble Apex

¶107

Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary

¶108

and Higher Secondary Education and another -vsParitosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others reported in

¶109

(1984) 4 SCC 27, has held at paragraph-16 as under:

¶110

16. xxx xxx 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

¶111

19 -

¶112

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶113

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. The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present case and hence there was no scope at all for the High Court to invalidate the provision contained in clause (3) of Regulation 104 as ultra vires on the grounds of its being in excess of the regulation-making power conferred on the Board. xxx xxx"

¶114

In view of the discussions made hereinabove and

¶115

while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in my humble opinion, this Court cannot direct the respondent-KSLU to further conduct revaluation as the Rules and Regulations of the KSLU do not provide for. The

¶116

NC: 2023:KHC:34101 WP No. 21215 of 2021

¶117

20 -

¶118

petitioner's relief/prayer being contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the University with regard to revaluation and challenge valuation, the same cannot be permitted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merits in the case of the petitioner to consider granting of any relief in his favour.

¶119