IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR CHI-IATTISGARH \ ix RESPONDENTS PETITIONER S/o Kashinath Mal, aged about 22 years, R/o Village Madhyakul, P.O. Ghoshpur RS. Amta District—Howrah West Bengal, W At present Bhartg'a Nagar Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through: Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, (C.G.) Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur (C.G.), through the Registrar, Guru Ghasidas University Bilaspur, (C.G.) The Principal of C.M.D. College Bilaspur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA w. PM No. ....'?2.'§.?]:..../2009 2 / Hemanta Kumar Mal, /, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA WRIT PETITION (C) No; 336 of 2009 PETITIONER Sarmistha Day. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS ALONGWITH W.P.(C) No. 337/2009, 338/2009, 339/2009 and 340/2009 Post for pronouncement of order on ..«?/.$.Eay of July, 2010. '—’x_ Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ‘ I T I I I J7 l t: \B PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 336 of2009’ Sarmistha Day. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh &‘ Others. RESPONDENTs ALONGWITH W.P.(C) No. 337/2009, 338/20091 339/2009 and 340/2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri", J. ‘ Present: Shri Rajes Kumar Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. h N.N.Roy, anel Lawr for the State/respondent N0. I. Shri Ashish Shrivastav, Advocate with Shri Harsh Wardhan, Advocate for the esponden No. Z-University. (Delivered on.QJ... day of July, 2010) Al the above writ etitions seek a direction to the responent- University o evaluate the answer-sheets of the petitioners in respect of the papers wherein they could ot acquire mimu pssing marks. Thus, the question of law involved in‘this batch of petitions is asto whether after revauation of the answer~sheets of the apers wherein the petitioners could not secure minimum qualifying marks, whether again revuation may be directed. The facts, i utshell, as projected by the petitionr in the following writ petitions, are as under: W.P.tC l N0. 336/2009: The petitioner was a rular student o Master of Arts (Final) Geography, of D.L.S. College, Bilapsur. She appeared in the final A h Sri P ye a rt ORDER $'’ l p d t r n nim a l p al n n e eg f \ z/wé examination held in the month of March-April, 2008‘ In the result, the petitioner was ‘Fail’. The petitioner obtained 29 marks out of 100 in the subject Climatology and Oceanography. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation of her answer-sheet. In revaluation of answer- sheet, the petitioner obtained 31 marks and the result remained unchanged. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for a copy of the answer sheet of the said subject under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner got the said answer sheet evaluated by one Dr. L.N.Verma, Professor of Geography, Arts & Science College, Raigarh, in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) wherein she obtained 48 marks (Annexure P/5). On an application being made by the petitioner, in accordance with memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) the matter was referred to a Committee of three members comprising of Dr’ Parmendra Dev, Vikram University, Dr. B.K.Singh, Government Engineering College and DR. K.N.Singh, Vikram University, Ujjain, wherein she was awarded 33 marks out of 100. After third revaluation, the result of the petitioner was declared on 02.01 .2009 (Annexure P/6). W.P.(C) No. 337/2009: The petitioner was a regular student of Master of Arts (Previous) Geography, of C.M.D. College, Bilapsur. He appeared in the final examination held in the month of March-April, 2008. In the result the petitioner was declared ‘Fail’. The petitioner obtained 31 marks out of 100 in the subject Geomorphology-1. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer-sheet. Even after revaluation, the result remained unchanged. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for a copy of the‘answer sheet of the said subject under the provisions of Right to 1 r Information Act, 2005. The petitioner got the said answer she_et valuated by one Dr. L.N‘erma, Professor o Geography, Arts & e V f Science College, Raigarh, in acordance with th me dated c e mo 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) wherein he obtai 45 marks (Anne ned xure P/5). On an application being made by the petitioner in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexe P/3), the matter wa referred to a ur s Committee f three mebers comprising of Dr. Parmendra Dev, o m Vikram iversity, Dr. B.K.Singh, Government Engineering College Un and DR. K.N.ingh, Vikram University, Ujjain, wherein he was S awarded 30 arks out of 100. fter third revaluation, the rsult of the m A e petitioner was declared on 02.01.2009 (Annexure P/6). W.P.(C) No. 338/2009: The petitioner was a regular student of Master of Arts (Previous) Geography, of Indira Gandhi Arts & Science College, Rahod, District Janjgir—Champa. He appeared in the final examination held in the month of March-April, 2008. In the result the petitioner was declared ‘Fail’. The petitioner obtained 33 marks out of 100 in the subject Geomorphology-l. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer-sheet. Even after revaluation, the result remained unchanged. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for a copy of the answer sheet of the said subject under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner got the said answer sheet evaluated by one Dr. L.N.Verma, Professor of Geography, Arts & Science College, Raigarh, in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) wherein he obtained 45 marks (Annexure P/5). On an application being made by the petitioner in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3), the matter was referred to a Committee of three members \\ comprlsmg of Dr Parmendra Dev V1k1am Umversny Dr B K Slngh Government Engmeenng College and DR KNSlngh Vlkram Un1ver31ty, UJJam, wherem he was awarded 38 marks out of 100. ADer third revaluation, the result of the petitioner was \declared on 02.01 .2009 (Annexure P/6). W.P.gC! N0. 339/2009: The petitioner was a regular student of Master of Arts (Previous) Geography, of Indira Gandhi Arts & Science College, Rahod, District Janjgir-Chatnpa. She appeared in the final examination held in the month of March-April, 2008. In the result, the petitioner was declared ‘Fail’. The petitioner obtained 33 marks out of 100 in the subject Geomorphology-1. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer-sheet. Even after revaluation, the result remained unchanged. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for a copy of the answer sheet of the said subject under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner got the said answer sheet evaluated by one Dr. L.N.Verma, Professor of Geography, Arts & Science College, Raigarh, in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) wherein she obtained 44 marks (Annexure P/S). On an application being made by the petitioner in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3), the matter 'was referred to a Committee of three members comprising of Dr. Parmendra Dev, Vikram University, Dr. B.K.Singh, Govemment Engineering College and DR. K.N.Singh, Vikram University, Ujjain wherein she was awarded 36 marks out of 100 After third revaluation the result of the petitloner was declared on \ 02 01 2009 (Annexure P/6) / n The petitioner was a regular student of Master of Arts (Previous) Geography, of Indira Gandhi Arts & Science College, Rahod, District Janjgir—Champa. She appeared in the flnal examination held in the month of March-April, 2008. In the result, the petitioner was declared ‘Fail’. The petitioner obtained 34 marks out of 100 in the subject Economic Geography-II. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation of her answer-sheet. Even after revaluation, the result remained unchanged. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for a copy of the answer sheet of the said subject under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner got the said answer sheet evaluated by one Dr. V.K.Tiwari, Professor of Geography, C.M.D. Post Graduate College, Bilaspur in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) wherein she obtained 50 marks (Annexure P/S). On an application being made by the petitioner in accordance with memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3), the matter was referred to a Committee of three members comprising of Dr. Vikram Verma, Sandipani College, Ujjai, Dr. Ravi Mishra, Madav College, Ujjain and Dr. R.R.Gorasya, Mandav College, Gwalior, wherein she was awarded 36 marks out of 100. After third revaluation, the result of the petitioner was declared on 02.01.2009 (Annexure P/6). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were found qualified in the valuation done by the professors namely Dr. L.N.Verma of K.G. Arts & Science College, Raigarh, who has awarded 48, 45, 45, 44 out of 100 marks (In W.P.(C) No. 336, 337, 338 and 339 of 2009) and; Dr. V.K.Tiwari, Assistant Professor, Geography, C.M.D. College, Bilaspur who has awarded 50 marks (in W.P.(C) No. 340/2009). The same ought to have been taken into / W consideration and the petitioners ought to have been declared ‘Pass’ in the aforestated subjects. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate with Shri Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent—University would submit that in the aforesaid cases, the respondent-University has acted in a fair, justified and legal manner. The petitioners, being the student of Maste of Arts (Previous) and (Final), appeared in the examination conducted for the academic year 2007-2008. The result was announced and the marksheets were issued wherein the petitioners were shown as failed in the respective subject, as aforestated. On being dissatisfied with the marks awarded to them, the petitioners applied for revaluation of the respective answer sheets wherein they could not even secure minimum passing marks. Shri Shrivastava would iiirther submit that Ordinance 5 of the University as finalized in the 9th Meeting held on 05.03.2005 (Annexure R/l) of the University provides for the remedy of revaluation, if a student is dissatisfied with the marks awarded, on payment of certain fee. This rule clearly stipulates that in order to ensure impartiality and to deal with utmost fairness, the answer sheets of the students, who are aggrieved by the evaluation, may apply to the University alongwith the prescribed fee and on receiving of such application, their answer sheets would be sent to expert valuers outside the University. Accordingly, their answer sheets were sent to two independent valuers. The answer sheets were examined by the valuers and they had submitted the revalued answer sheet and a report showing question wise marks/obtained’liy the petitioners (Annexure R/Z). I \l‘m ,7 r 5. Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the dispute is in between the petitioners and the respondent-University and no relief has been claimed against the State. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, ”perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto: 7. As per the procedure stipulated in Ordinance 5, if the marks awarded by even by one of the independent valuers exceeds or reduces the marks obtained by the student, by a margin of10% of the total number of marks, then there is a case which warrants change of marks in such contingency the university would proceed with the next step. The University, after having noticed some change inlthe marks granted by the independent valuers, on the application of the petitioners, referred ‘ all the answer sheets to the Committee of three experts and the marks awarded by the Committee was taken into consideration. On the marks granted by the Committee, the result remained unchanged as there was no variation by reducing or enhancing the marks by a margin of lO percent of the marks obtained by the petitioners in the first valuation. In no case, the petitioners have obtained minimum qualifying marks by the Committee except the valuation done by the Dr. L.N.Verma and Dr. V.K.Tiwari, at the instance of the petitioners, privately. The same cannot be held as final. The memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/3) which was adopted and followed by the University to have transparency and fairness in the valuation after change of marks by the independent valuers, on revaluation, the final answer sheets were referred to the Committee of experts and the marks awarded by them were taken into y we :A‘n A ,. consideration. Thus, there was no change found;