High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sadar Siraj v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - C No. 65733 of 2006  RD-AH 13327 (1 August 2007)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65733 of 2006
Sadaf Seraj Versus Union of India and others
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
The petitioner appeared in B.Com Part I Examination, 2006 conducted by the Allahabad University. Out of the six papers, she obtained an average of nearly 60% marks in five papers but in Paper no.1-Accountancy she obtained only 28% marks. In accordance with the Rules, the petitioner was granted 2 grace marks and she was thus declared pass in the said paper. The petitioner being dissatisfied with her performance in Paper no.1-Accountancy, opted to appear in the Second Examination (Back paper). However, in the said examination she obtained only 20 marks and was thus declared fail in the B.Com. Part I Examination. Being aggrieved by the marks awarded to her in the Second Examination, she has filed this writ petition with a prayer to call for the records and have the answer copy of Paper no. 1-Accountancy re-examined and permit her to provisionally appear in the B.Com. Part II Examinations.
I have heard Ms Tulika Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent no.1 and Sri A.B.L.Gaur, learned Senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no.2-University and have perused the record. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
In pursuance to an order passed by this Court the answer copy of Paper I of the Second Examination of the petitioner was produced before me. On perusal of the said answer copy it was found that no marks had been awarded for the answer to question no. 8 as the same had not been examined by the examiner. Thus this Court directed the respondents to have the answer copy re-examined by an expert examiner. In response, the University only got the answer to question no.8 re-examined and not the other answers. In such re-examination the petitioner was awarded 3 marks for her answer to question no.8. After noticing that the entire answer copy of the petitioner was not re-examined and on being prima facie satisfied that for questions no. 1 to 5 the petitioner had wrongly been awarded zero marks, and also keeping in view that one answer was left out from evaluation by the examiner in which the petitioner was later on awarded 3 marks, this Court on 8.2.2007 directed the University to get the entire answer copy of Accountancy-Paper no.1 of the Second Examination of the petitioner re-examined through some other examiner who may be the Head of the Department concerned. Sri Gaur has submitted that the answer copy was got re-examined by two expert examiners and one such examiner awarded 24 marks whereas the other awarded 25 marks.
The answer copy of the petitioner has again been produced before me for perusal. What is noticed is that while the answer copy was given for re-examination, the marks awarded earlier had neither been erased or covered. This is an unusual method for getting the answer copy re-examined because in case if the marks awarded by the initial examiner remain on record, the person re-examining the answer copy would certainly be influenced by the marks awarded by the earlier examiner and would thus not be able to award marks independently. Sri Gaur, however, could not justify as to why the earlier marks had not been erased or covered while sending the answer copy for re-examination. Sri Gaur also could not justify the manner in which the answer copy had been got initially evaluated in which the evaluation of some questions had been left out. No doubt, it is true that once a candidate opts for appearing in the Second Examination (Back paper), the marks awarded in the Second Examination is to be taken as final but in the facts of the present case where the fairness of the evaluation of the answer copy of the Second Examination is very much in doubt and cannot be justified, in my view, in such peculiar facts as are of this case, the marks awarded to the petitioner in the initial examination be taken as final, in which the petitioner was declared pass after being granted the grace marks permissible under the University Statutes.
It has further been brought to the notice of the Court that B.Com. Part II Examinations have already been conducted. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that in order to save one valuable year of the academic career of the petitioner, which would be lost in case if she is not permitted to appear in the B.Com. Part II Examination, 2007, on a suggestion made by the Court, Sri Gaur has very fairly accepted that the University would permit the petitioner to appear in the B.Com Part II Examination, 2007 along with the Second Examination or on such date as may be arranged by the University for holding her examination. It is observed that said examination of the petitioner may be held as early as possible.
This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.