2004 PLP 665 (CLC)

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that justice was not done to him by the examiners of the aforesaid two English Papers as evaluation was not made by the examiners in a fair and responsible manner.

4. Prayer in the writ petition is for issuing an appropriate writ directing the respondents to get the script in Papers A and B in the subject of English re-evaluated under Regulation No.23 of Chapter VII (Conduct of Examinations) of their Calendar.

5. Writ petition was opposed by the learned counsel far the respondents on the grounds that opinion of the father of the petitioner that the petitioner deserved 75 marks is immaterial and meaningless inasmuch as nobody can interfere in the marking of the examiner duly appointed by the Competent Authority; that addition of 10 marks in Paper-B was not the result of re-marking but was on account of re-checking on the petitioner's application during which it was found that due to inadvertence the aforesaid 10 marks of one question were omitted to be added in the grand total. The said mistake was rectified on re-checking and during the said process it was found that all the questions attempted were duly marked, no question was left unmarked and that under Regulation No.23 the University is not obliged to get the answer books re-evaluated. Hence request of the petitioner was rejected.

6. Regulation No.23 is reproduced as under:-- "

23. The Vice-Chancellor or an officer authorized by him may, on receipt of an application in the prescribed form addressed to the Vice-Chancellor and accompanied by a fee of Rs.50 per subject, (A and B), satisfy himself that:-- (a) the result of the applicant has been correctly complied and declared (this will include checking of answer-books award lists and result sheets); (b) the answer-book is in the handwriting of the candidate himself. (In exceptional cases, the Vice-Chancellor may in his discretion allow the answer-book to be shown to the candidate or his guardian for verification of handwriting). This, however, shall not fetter the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor to get a particular answer-book or answer-books re-examined in exceptional cases where there is a strong ground to believe that the same have not been justly evaluated." It is not alleged in the writ petition that result of the petitioner was not correctly compiled or that the answer-books were not in his handwriting. From the words used in the Regulation it is evident that the l discretion given to the Vice-Chancellor is not to be used as a rule but in exceptional cases where, in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor there is a strong ground to believe that the answer-book/books have not been justly evaluated. In such cases Where exercise of discretion is an exception and non-exercise thereof is a rule, no reason was required to be given for refusing to exercise the discretion; however, in the event of exercising the discretion reason was required to be given for justifying the same.

7. The said Regulation does not create a statutory right in favour of the petitioner (examinee) to get his papers re-evaluated.

8. In the circumstances stated above when the answer-books of the petitioner were rechecked and mistake in the calculation was rectified and it was found that all the questions attempted were duly marked and no question was left unmarked and when there was no allegation that the script was not in the handwriting of the petitioner and the only objection was with regard to the evaluation, the University was not obliged or legally bound to get the petitioner's answer-books re-evaluated.

9. Under Regulation No.23 aforesaid the petitioner cannot be deemed to possess a legal right to get answer-books re-evaluated nor the University can be deemed under legal obligation to order for re evaluation. Prayer, in the petition cannot be, therefore, granted. Petition dismissed. H.B.T./M-2356/L Petition dismissed.