Dismissed

Jomi Jose v. the Kannur University

Kerala HC5 Dec 2019WP(C)/26515/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the Syndicate's decision to fine and debar an Associate Professor for discrepancies in student paper evaluation. The court found no illegality or malafide intent in the Syndicate's action and held that academic matters are within the Syndicate's expertise.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed, but the petitioner is granted two weeks to pay the fine from the date of receipt of the judgment copy; if paid, no further action shall be taken.

Jomi Jose Vs the Kannur University — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.26515 OF 2019(L)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JOMI JOSE, AGED 36 YEARS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED SCIENCE & HUMANITIES, VIMAL JYOTHY ENGINEERING COLLEGE, JYOTHI NAGAR, CHEMPERI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 632.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR-670 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶11

2 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR-670 002.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY SRI. M. SASINDRAN, SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C)No.26515 of 2019

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, an

¶18

Associate Professor, seeking to quash Exts.P3, P5 and P9 orders passed by the Kannur University, imposing fine on the petitioner in the matter of valuation of examination papers of the students in accordance with the provisions of the Kannur University Ordinances, 1999, and Clause IX of Paragraph 56 of the Regulations for revaluation. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

¶19

On 17.11.2015, the Controller of Examinations,

¶20

Kannur University appointed the petitioner as an

¶21

additional examiner for the evaluation of answer scripts of 1^st & 2^nd Semester B.Tech. Examination in Physics, 2015. On 06.02.2017, the Controller of Examinations issued Ext.P1 notice to the petitioner, informing that the answer scripts of the paper “102 Engineering Physics” of Combined I & II Semester B.Tech examination, April 2015, valued by the petitioner, 7 candidates have secured more than 30% of the maximum marks, in revaluation. It is also specified that, as per clause IX of Para 56 of the Regulations for Revaluation, such a variation invites action against

¶22

W.P.(C)No.26515 of 2019

¶23

¶24

the examiner who originally valued the answer paper. Hence, as resolved by the Syndicate, petitioner was directed to furnish explanation on the matter for proceeding further in that regard.

¶25

basically stating that the paper evaluations were done based on the scheme for evaluation provided by the University and on consultation with the concerned Chief

¶26

Examiner, and further that the petitioner has taken maximum effort and care while evaluating the answer scripts of the students, taking into account the responsibility the University has entrusted on the petitioner. After stating so, it is further stated that, if the issue is found genuine, the petitioner

¶27

will admit his mistake and apologise for the same, and also assured that petitioner will be more vigilant and careful in future.

¶28

petitioner was informed by the Controller of

¶29

Examinations, that the Kannur University Syndicate has

¶30

resolved to debar the petitioner from all the examination duties for one year and to impose an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards fine. Thereupon, petitioner was directed to remit the fine within 10 days, and also

¶31

W.P.(C)No.26515 of 2019

¶32

¶33

debarred from all the examination duties for one year with effect from 28.04.2017. Having been aggrieved, petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the ViceChancellor of the University, seeking to review the decision of the Syndicate, and accordingly, as per Ext.P5 dated 11.01.2018, petitioner was informed by the Controller of Examinations that the Syndicate of the University has revised its earlier decision and resolved to reduce the penalty imposed from Rs.10,000/to Rs.5,000/- and to retain the one year ban imposed, and directed the petitioner to make the payment.

¶34

Thereupon, as per Ext.P6, petitioner requested for furnishing copies of 7 answer scripts for verification, and as per Ext.P7, petitioner was granted permission for personal verification of the answer scripts. Case projected by the petitioner is that, no reasons are assigned in Ext.P3 for imposing penalty and debarring the petitioner from the examination duties for a period of one year, and therefore, the action of the Syndicate is arbitrary and illegal, liable to be interfered with by this Court. It is also evident that, after the scrutiny of the answer sheets by the petitioner, petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 request dated 16.05.2018, seeking to revoke the punishment on

¶35

W.P.(C)No.26515 of 2019

¶36

¶37

the ground that during revaluation, unfair hike was given by another examiner, and therefore, petitioner is not responsible for the difference in marks, as is pointed out by the Syndicate.

¶38

The Syndicate considered the request as per its resolution dated 22.12.2018 and decided to impose a fine of Rs.15,000/- and directed to remit the same within 10 days from the date of receipt of the communication, evident from Ext.P9. On the basis of Ext.P9, petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act to furnish the marks awarded by the petitioner in respect of 7 papers valued and that of

¶39

the marks awarded in 3 revaluations of the 7 papers as per Ext.P10 request, which was rejected as per Ext.P11. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted a request seeking time for payment of fine, as per Ext.P12 direction. Thereafter, petitioner has filed various

¶40

representations before the officials of the University seeking to withdraw the fine imposed against the petitioner and seeking copies of answer sheets, which were all rejected.

¶41

A statement is filed for and on behalf of the

¶42

1^st respondent University, justifying the stand adopted

¶43

by it, and also contending that it was due to huge

¶44

W.P.(C)No.26515 of 2019 6

¶45

variation of marks, in accordance with the powers

¶46

conferred on the Syndicate as per Ordinance 3 of the Kannur University Ordinances, 1999, punishment was

¶47

imposed and petitioner has not pointed out any

¶48

illegality justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶49

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶50

petitioner is that, petitioner is not responsible for the excessive marks given by the examiners in the revaluation of the answer scripts. That apart, it is

¶51

pointed out that, Syndicate has not considered the matter taking into account the attendant circumstances and the petitioner is not informed by the Syndicate the

¶52

reasons for imposing the ban and fine on the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that, the University Syndicate has imposed such restrictions on

¶53

the petitioner and imposed fine, since it was found

¶54

that petitioner has not valued the answer scripts in accordance with the modalities prescribed for the

¶55

W.P.(C)No.26515 of 2019 7

¶56

purpose and it was found that there are huge variation in marks which necessitated the Syndicate to consider the matter and then imposed fine and ban on the petitioner. Clause 56 of the Regulations relating to the revaluation/issue of photocopy/scrutiny of answer scripts of University examinations dated 20.10.2010 is relevant to the context, which read thus:

¶57

“Where the difference between the original marks and the average of the revaluation marks is found to be above 30% of the maximum marks, appropriate action will be taken against the examiner who originally valued the answer paper”.

¶58

So also, Ordinance 3 of Kerala University

¶59

Ordinances, 1999 dealing with disqualification is also relevant, which read thus:

¶60

“ 3. Disqualification .-The Syndicate shall have the power to disqualify any person for a specified period or permanently from question paper setting or examinership, or to levy fine as prescribed by the Syndicate from time to time or to withdraw recognition as a teacher for inefficiency, misconduct, malpractice or for disobeying the instructions issued by the University”.

¶61

Therefore, going by the provisions discussed above, it is clear that the Syndicate is vested with ample powers

¶62

to take action against the teachers, if the evaluation

¶63

is not done properly. Petitioner has no case that any members of the Syndicate have acted malafidely or they nurtured any ill-will against the petitioner. It is

¶64

W.P.(C)No.26515 of 2019

¶65

¶66

also significant to note that when petitioner filed application requesting to give answer scripts of the revaluation done, petitioner was permitted to scrutinize the same, and the sole contention advanced

¶67

by the petitioner in that regard is that, in

¶68

revaluation, the examiners have given huge marks to the students and petitioner is not responsible for the same.

¶69

Anyhow, the Syndicate, which is the authority in the helm of affairs of the University, had occasion to examine the subject matter taking into account the factual circumstances put forth by the petitioner and has arrived at a conclusion that petitioner has not valued the answer scripts properly and in accordance with the modalities prescribed for the purpose. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner has not made out any case against the action of the Syndicate so as to interfere with, exercising the power of judicial discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, these are all academic matters and this Court cannot visualise and presume that, action will be taken against a teacher, without genuine reasons, especially due to the fact that petitioner has no case that there is any malafide

¶70

W.P.(C)No.26515 of 2019

¶71

¶72

action on the part of the members of the Syndicate or any other officials of the University.

¶73

It is also quite clear and evident that

¶74

petitioner was debarred from the examination duties for a period of one year from 28.04.2017, and it was over more than a year ago, and the petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2019. Moreover, the Syndicate has resolved to impose the fine after providing opportunity to explain the situation and providing opportunity to verify the answer scripts. Above all these aspects, petitioner had requested to grant extension of time for payment of fine on 05.02.2019, which was rejected by the Vice Chancellor on 06.03.2019. Taking into account all these aspects,

¶75

I do not think petitioner has made out any case justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶76

Therefore, the writ petition has no sustenance, and accordingly it is dismissed. However, I make it clear that, if the petitioner has not paid the fine, two weeks' time is granted to the petitioner to pay the same, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and if the fine is paid accordingly, no

¶77

W.P.(C)No.26515 of 2019

¶78

¶79

further action shall be taken against the petitioner.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

St/-06.12.2019

W.P.(C)No.26515 of 2019

¶85

¶86

APPENDIX

¶87

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶88

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE NOTICE DATED 01.02.2017 THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY	OF THE REPLY DATED 28.02.2017.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY 21.06.2017	OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY VICE-CHANC	OF THE REQUEST FORWARDED TO THE ELLOR ON 03.07.2017.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY 11.01.2018	OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED .
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY	OF THE REQUEST DATED 23.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY 03.05.2018	OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED .
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED	OF REQUEST DATED 16.05.2018 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND	OF COMMUNICATION DATED 17.01.2019 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY	OF REQUEST DATED 31.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY THE DEPUTY PUBLIC INF	OF THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2019 OF REGISTRAR, ACADEMIC & STATE ORMATION OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF LETTER DATED 06.03.2019 TO THE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY THE JOINT INFORMATIO	OF THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2019 OF REGISTRAR-I & STATE PUBLIC N OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY THE CONTRO APPELLATE	OF THE INFORMATIONS FURNISHED BY LLER OF EXAMINATIONS AND THE AUTHORITY ON 10.05.2019.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY 06.09.2019	OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶89

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Jomi Jose v. the Kannur University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jomi Jose v. the Kannur University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cherupara Granites Vs State of Kerala

Valsala, Vs Regimon

Jose Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Soumya.M.K Vs Assistant Educational Officer

Thushara K., Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences (Kuhs)

Midhun Jyothies Vs Central Board of Secondary Education