IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.06.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.No.26928 of 2009 Nisha Vijay Patil ... Petitioner vs. The Controller of Examinations, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to conduct transparent revaluation of petitioner's Answer Sheets of the subject "Corporate Accounting-I", Subject Code-SY3C Semester-III held in November 2008 and award the marks as per standard norms of valuation. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arulmozhi For Respondent : Mr.S.Srinivasan O R D E R Heard Ms.A.Arulmozhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent University. 2. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to conduct transparent revaluation of her Answer Sheets of the subject "Corporate Accounting-I", Subject Code-SY3C Semester- III held in November 2008 and award the marks as per standard norms of valuation. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was studying third year B.Com. Corporate Secretaryship course in Anna Adarsh College for women at Anna Nagar, Chennai and that she has been studious from her school days and has scored above 90% marks throughout her school studies. She studied in Sindhi Model Senior Secondary School and scored 90.2% marks in Higher Secondary Public Examination. She had appeared for Semester I examinations held in November 2007 and scored 92% marks in Financial Accounting-I, 77% marks in Principles of Management and 78% marks in Managerial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Economics. In Semester II examinations held in April 2008, she has scored 92% marks in Financial Accounting-II, 74% marks in Human Resources Management and 50% marks in International Trade. In the Semester III examinations held in November 2008, she scored 76% marks in Company Law and Secretariat Practice-I and 100% marks in Statistics-I. But, the petitioner was given 40% marks in Corporate Accounting-I. 4. The petitioner would further submit that the subject of Corporate Accounting is her favourite subject and the marks scored by her in Semesters I and II would prove that she has secured 92% marks in the subject Financial Accounting in both the semesters and scored 100% marks in statistics. Besides that, she has also performed in the III Semester Corporate Accounting-I Subject Code- SY3C to score nearly centum. She has expected more than 95% marks in the result. But, to her shock and surprise, she was awarded only 40% marks, subsequent to which, she applied for revaluation on 24.03.2009. She has also collected a photocopy of her answer sheets and requested her lecturer who was handling the subject of Corporate Accounting to value her answer sheets. According to the valuation of her lecturer, she deserves to get 97% marks. But to her dismay, even after revaluation, she was awarded 62% marks only as per the Statement of Marks issued on 16.03.2009, before which date, she was not communicated the result of revaluation. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that she made all efforts to meet the respondent and also requested for application form for a fresh revaluation. But, she was informed that the revaluation will be done only once and the second revaluation is not permissible under their procedure. Hence, her lecturer made a request to the respondent to consider the necessity for revalution. As there was no reply from the respondent, the petitioner again submitted a representation to the respondent on 25.08.2009 requesting for the photocopy of the answer sheet by which 62% marks was awarded in revaluation. The representation was endorsed by the Principal and the Head of the Department of Corporate Secretaryship, Anna Adarsh College, Chennai. Finding no response from the respondent, the petitioner moved this court for the above relief. 6. The respondent has filed counter affidavit. The stand taken by the respondent is that as per the Regulations of the University, second revaluation is not permissible. Further, the petitioner had also not made any averment as to how the University evaluation is erroneous and how the petitioner is entitled for ninety seven marks. In such circumstances, the valuation of the examiner employed by the University being an independent examiner has to be accepted than the claim of the petitioner on the basis of valuation of her own teacher, which is biased only in favour of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. According to the respondent, the petitioner, securing 40% marks in the subject Corporate Accountancy in the III Semester Examination held in November 2008 and the revision of the same as 62% in re-valuation are all matters borne out of records. Her claim for 92% marks in the said subject is specifically denied by the respondent as incorrect, vague and an interested valuation by the petitioner's Lecturer. On the other hand, the University valuation is made by an independent examiner. The respondent would further submit that the petitioner has not made any averment as to how the re-valuation done by the University is vitiated. While that being so, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for second re-valuation. Therefore, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. On the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material records. It is seen that the petitioner had appeared for III semester examination and secured 40% marks in Corporate Accounting-I. Aggrieved by the same, she made a request for revaluation of the answer sheet and that was done by the respondent. On revaluation, the petitioner was awarded 62% marks. It appears that the petitioner had secured higher percentage of marks in the first and second semester examinations. Therefore, she claims that she expected higher percentage of marks in the III semester also. Though her representation has been addressed for second revaluation, it is seen from the averments that second revaluation is not permissible under the regulations of the University. 9. A perusal of the Extract from the Provisional Minutes of the Meeting of the Syndicate held on 07.05.2003 would show that it has been resolved under clause (h) that the highest marks awarded to the candidate either in the original valuation or in revaluation shall be awarded to the candidate. It is stated by the respondent that as per the norms of revaluation, the marks awarded to any candidate in the revaluation are the final marks and there is no provision in the norms of the University for reconsideration of the second review once again. While that being so, the respondent, after noticing all these happenings and on notice from this court, has taken a decision on 08.06.2010 and passed the following order : "I am, by direction of the Vice Chancellor, to inform you that based on the representation of the candidate that the University is ready to review her case as a special one from the list of expert panel of the examiners maintained by the University. The original answer script has already been submitted to the Hon'ble High Court. It is also pointed out that the marks awarded in the review will be final. You are requested to proceed as per the above https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ instruction." 10. The above communication of the University addressed to the counsel for the respondent has been put on notice to the learned counsel for the petitioner that after revaluation of the answer sheet, the petitioner has been awarded 62% marks and thereafter, she had represented to the University for review of the matter. Now, the University has taken a stand that it is ready to review the case of the petitioner as a special one from the list of expert panel of the examiners maintained by the University. The list of experts in Corporate Accounting in the University of Madras is enclosed in the typed set of papers. 11. In such view of the matter, as the University has now agreed to review the case of the petitioner as a special one, the respondent University is directed to review the case of the petitioner with one of the examiners in the expert panel of the examiners maintained by the respondent University as per the Annexure in the typed set of papers and award marks to the petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In such event, as stated by the respondent, the petitioner has to accept the marks awarded by the respondent University as final. This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar abe To : The Controller of Examinations, University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. + 1 CC to Mr.S.Srinivasan,Advocate,SR.42812 + 1 CC to Mr.A.Arulmozhi,Advocate,SR.42558 W.P.No.26928 of 2009 KA(CO) EM/16.6.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/