1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14707/2009 Rajesh Kumar Sharma & ors Vs The Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & anr 2.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14521/2009 Surendra Kumar Jangid vs The RUHS & anr 3.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14522/2009 Sandeep Singh Khurmi Vs The RUHS & anr 4.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14525/2009 Sanjay Kumar Godara Vs The RUHS & anr 5.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15042/2009 Ramesh Chand Damor & anr Vs The RUHS & anr 6.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14523/2009 Kuldeep Mishra Vs The RUHS & anr 7.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14524/2009 Narendra Kumar Swami Vs The RUHS & anr 22.12.2010 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Saransh Saini Mr Vinod Gupta - for petitioners Mr GS Bapna, Advocate General - for the State Mr RA Katta – for RUHS Mr Prahlad Singh – for applicant-Dr MR Goel BY THE COURT: Since on same set of facts, similar relief has been claimed, all the above writ petition have been heard together and are decided by this common order. 2 The grievance of the petitioners is on account of denial of benefit of revaluation of answer sheet. All the petitioners are pursuing MBBS course. They appeared in the main examination followed by examination of reminder/ due papers. On declaration of result of reminder/ due papers petitioners, applied for revaluation. This was based on previous action of the respondents when they permitted revaluation of answer sheets in similar circumstances. Respondents have come with the case that as per provisions of Ordinance 157-A of the Hand Book of the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (as adopted from the Hand Book of the University of Rajasthan) revaluation of answer sheets for reminder/ due papers is not permissible. The Vice Chancellor is, however, having powers to permit revaluation in a given as provided under Ordinance 157-B. It is submitted that revaluation of reminder/ due paper being not permissible, prayer made by the petitioners may not be granted. So far as permission of revaluation in previous years is concerned, it is submitted that same is based on recommendations of the committee. The Vice Chancellor, accordingly, permitted revaluation of reminder/ due papers though 3 the decision therein is not inconformity with the provisions of Ordinance 157-B. Petitioners, in any case, may not be granted relief which amounting to perpetuation of illegality. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully. Since reference of Ordinance 157-A and 157-B has been given, it would be gainful to quote both the provisions thus- “O.157-A(1).Revaluation of answer books shall be permissible in not more than 50% of the theory papers including compulsory,core,subsidiary, Honours, additional or any other paper(s) in which a candidate actually appeared at an examination. Where the number of papers in which a candidate appeared at an examination happens to be an odd number, it will be increased by one for the purpose of reckoning 50% of the papers. Note; Revaluation of answer books of that/those paper (s) shall also be permissible in which a candidate re- appears for improvement of performance. (2). Notwithstanding the provisions of clause (i) above, revaluation of answer books shall not be permitted in respect of (1)M.E examination in the Faculty of Engineering, M.D., M.S., M.Sc. (Med.) D.M. and M.Ch. Examinations, in the Faculty of Medicine, M. Phil. and Foreign Languages examination, (ii)the scripts of practical examinations, sessional/ periodical tests, dissertation, thesis and via-voce and (iii) all supplementary examinations, Special examinations, Part examinations, back papers and boycotted papers. N.B. (1) 'Part examination' means an examination at which a candidate appears in those subject(s)/ paper(s) only which he has yet to clear. 4 (ii) 'Boycotted Papers' mean the papers in which a candidate having boycotted the examination earlier is allowed another chance to appear. 3. A candidate who wishes to apply for revaluation of his answer book(s) should submit an application on the prescribed form obtainable on payment of Rs. 1/- together with the requisite fee to the Registrar before expiry of 30 days from the date of the declaration of his result. 4. An application received without requisite fee, or after the last date determined as in clause (3) shall not be entertained. 5. The process of revaluation includes scrutiny of marks and re-checking of result and, therefore, it will not be necessary for a candidate applying for revaluation of his answer book(s) to apply for scrutiny of marks of the paper(s) for which he has applied for revaluation. But, if a candidate wants his marks of any other paper(s) also to be scrutinize, he shall apply for the same separately in accordance with the provisions of O.157. In such a case if the marks of the candidate in any paper(s)are increased as a result of scrutiny, and thereafter, he does not want his answer- books to be revalued, or he wants revaluation of some paper(s) other than the one for which he originally applied for he will be permitted to withdraw his application for revaluation (in which case his fee will be refunded) or to amend the same provided his request to that effect is received by the University within 15 days of the date of despatch of the scrutiny result. 6. The fee for revaluation of answer-books shall be Rs.50/- per paper which will not be refunded, except when a candidate is allowed to withdraw his application as provided in clause (5) above. 7. Revaluation shall be done by an examiner to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor from a panel recommended by the Committee for Selction of Examiners/Convener. 8. Each answer-book shall be revaluaed by one examiner only. 5 9(1)(i) If the award of the second examiner (revaluator) is more than the award of the first examiner subject to a limit of 20% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, the same shall be taken as the marks obtained on revaluation. In case, the award of the second examiner (revaluator) exceeds the above limit of 20%, the answer-book shall be referred to a third examiner and the average of the two closest awards shall be taken into account. If the three awards are uniformly spread, then the middle award shall be taken into account. (ii) (a) If the award of the second examiner (revaluator) is less than that of the first examiner upto the extent of 5% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, the award of the first examiner shall stand. (b) In case the award of the second examiner (revaluator) is less than that of the first examiner and the decrease is more than 5% but not more than 20% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, the average of the two awards shall be taken as the marks of revaluation provided the result of the candidate is not affected adversely, i.e. his division is not changed or he does not get supplementary instead of pass or he does not fail instead of supplementary or he does not fail in an individual paper/subject instead of pass. In such cases the marks shall be decreased to the extent that his result is not affected adversely. (c) If the award of the second examiner (revaluator) is less than that of the first examiner and the decrease in marks exceeds 20% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, the answer book shall be referred to a third examiner and the average of the two closest awards ( the middle award in case the three awards are uniformly spread) shall be taken as the marks of revaluation subject to the proviso mentioned above in sub-clause(ii)(b). 10. The candidate shall submit his original marks sheet to the University along with the application for revaluation failing which the application will not be entertained. 11. The increase in marks obtained by a candidate as a result of revaluation shall not be taken 6 into account for preparing the merit list of first 10 candidates standing in order of merit at an examination. 12. Remuneration for revaluation of answer-books shall be paid to the examiners @ Rs.5/- per answer-book subject to a minimum of Rs.25/-for the answer-books of any one paper. Postal expenses incurred by the examiner shall be reimbursed in full. 13. A candidate who is declared eligible for supplementary examination as a result of revaluation shall be permitted to appear at the usual supplementary examination or, if the same is already over, at the time of the next main examination along with the higher examination. A candidate who becomes eligible for admission to a next higher class consequent upon improvement of his result on revaluation in the middle of a session shall be considered eligible for admission to that class within 21 days from the date of issue of communication of the revaluation result but not later than 31st December of the same session. In such cases the attendance shall be counted from the date of admission. Where the facility of appearing as a non- collegiate candidate in such examinations exists he shall also be eligible to apply for permission to appear at an examination as a non-collegiate candidate within 21 days from the date of communication of the revaluation result. Notes: 1. A candidate, who is declared eligible to appear at the Supple. Final Year T.D.C. Exam., consequent upon re-valuation, and has yet to clear any subject(s)/paper(s) of First and/or Second Year Exam. shall not be eligible for admission/appearing at the higher examination. He/she shall be permitted to appear in the Supple. subject along with the backlog of lower exam(s) at the main examination. 2. Candidates who would appear in lower examinations as well as in higher examination under Three Year Degree Course Scheme, consequent upon re-valuation and pass in higher examination but fail in lower examination, their result of higher examination shall be kept with-held till they clear the lower exam. Such candidates shall be required to re-appear at the lower exams. in all the subjects of the lower exams. as per scheme and syllabi in force. 7 14. Candidates desirous to apply for re- valuation may treat their result as “No change” for submission of application forms for appearing at the ensuing exam., within due dates. In case their result changes consequent upon re-valuation the application forms submitted by them will be amended accordingly on request by the candidate. 15. The answer-books shall not be subject to any inspection or production before any external or internal authority except at the instance of the Registrar or the Vice-Chancellor. O.157-B. If a written complaint is made by or on behalf of a candidate within one month from the date of declaration of result about prejudiced evaluation of his answer-book of a written paper by an examiner affecting the character of his result and neither double evaluation of answer-books is in vogue nor is revaluation permitted at that examination under the rules, and the Vice-Chancellor is satisfied about the prima facie genuineness of the complaint on the basis of the evidence before him or the circumstances of the case, he may order revaluation of the answer-book by two external examiners appointed for the purpose and accept majority opinion where the candidates are simply declared 'Approved' or 'Not Approved' or the average of the two nearest awards where marks are awarded, provided such opinion/award affects the character of the candidate's result.” Bare perusal of both the aforesaid provisions, no doubt, shows revaluation of answer sheets is permissible but does not provide revaluation of back/ due papers. Revaluation can be permitted by the Vice Chancellor under given circumstances pursuant to Ordinance 157-B. To seek benefit under the aforesaid Ordinance, a case is to be made out of the nature indicated in the Ordinance 157-B. Perusal of the record of previous year wherein 8 revaluation of answer sheets was permitted, does not show that case was falling under Ordinance 157-B. This has not been disputed by the respondents, rather, they argued that illegality earlier committed may not be perpetuated. Since petitioners made representation but the reasons of revaluation shown therein is not confirming to the Ordinance 157-B, I am not inclined to accept these writ petitions. Previous act of the respondents was illegal because no representation was received by them making out out a case to fall under Ordinance 157-B. Even the committee report does not show the aforesaid. In view of aforesaid, grant of permission to revaluation would amount to perpetuation of illegality which cannot otherwise be permitted hence, writ petitions deserve to be rejected on that ground itself. Before dismissal of the writ petitions, it is necessary to consider that the respondents coming to know about the illegality has not taken any action against defaulting officials despite the fact that during the course of arguments counsel for petitioners made a specific allegation against respondents to benefit wards of influential persons and, for that purpose, counsel for the respondents sought time, which was granted to them to seek instructions but when no instructions have been given, I am left with no option but to take cognizance of the previous act of the respondents. Learned Advocates appearing for the respondents 9 have no objection if an enquiry is conducted to look into previous act of the respondent-University permitting revaluation of answer sheets of back/ due papers. This is mainly to find out as to who are the beneficiaries because it has also been submitted that majority of them were declared 'pass' in an unusual manner. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, following directions are passed - 1. The enquiry in the matter would be conducted by the Inspector General of Police, Range-I, Jaipur to find out as to who were the beneficiaries of revaluation of papers in previous year and out of them who are relatives of Officers in the government, politician, doctors in service or any other influential person of the like nature. 2. Details of the students applied for revaluation and even declared pass would be furnished by RUHS with complete details. 3. After completion of enquiry, matter would be reported to this court for follow up action, if anything adverse or serious found therein. 4. The enquiry may be concluded within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and enquiry report may be submitted to this court. 5. The respondents are directed to co-operate in the enquiry. 10 Aforesaid directions have been given in the circumstances that while illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated but inaction after knowing about the illegality is also fatal. In view of discussion and directions made above, I do not find any case for granting relief as prayed for in the writ petitions. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed. Registry is directed to list these cases for follow up action, if so required, in view of order passed for conducting enquiry and submitting report thereafter. (MN Bhandari) J. bnsharma