Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SADHNA SHARMA versus VIC CHANCELLOR CHHATRAPATI SAHUJI MAHARAJ UNIV. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sadhna Sharma v. Vic Chancellor Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj Univ. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 45763 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 2190 (30 August 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                                        Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45763 of 2004

Sadhna Sharma Vs. Vice Chancellor, Chhatrapati Sahuji

Maharaj University, Kanpur  & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The petitioner is a private student of B.A. Part I of Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur. She appeared in the B.A. Part I Examination in May, 2004. The examination center of the petitioner was M. Lal Public Inter College, Naini, Allahabad. The subjects of the petitioner in B.A. Part I were Hindi Literature, Sanskrit and Education. The results of B.A. Part I, 2004 examinations were declared on 8.8.2004 and as per her mark-sheet, the petitioner obtained less than the pass marks in two subjects. She obtained  39 marks out of 100 in Hindi Literature;  27 marks out of 100 in Sanskrit; and 18 marks out of 100 in Education. The pass marks required to be obtained by the student in each subject is 33.  The contention of the petitioner is that she had wrongly been shown as absent in Education II paper whereas she had actually appeared in the examination of the said paper. It has further been contended that although she had answered certain questions of Sanskrit papers correctly but the evaluation was not proper and she had not been given full marks. The petitioner has, thus, filed this writ petition with the prayer for a direction to the respondents in the nature of mandamus to produce the answer copies of the petitioner and also to direct the respondent-University to re-evaluate the answers and thereafter a correct mark sheet may be provided to her, and further that she may be permitted to appear in B.A. Part II Examination of the year 2005.  

I have heard Sri Jai Karan Nath Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University and have perused the record. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent-University has been filed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

As regards the re-evaluation of marks in the subject of Education, the petitioner has categorically sworn on affidavit that she had appeared  in both the papers of Education. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has also annexed a copy of the verification form to show that she had appeared in each of two papers of all the subjects. A perusal of the said verification form shows that the petitioner appeared in Education 1st Paper on 21.5.2004 and Education 2nd Paper on 22.5.2004. On the verification form the signatures of the Invigilator are also there.

In the counter affidavit the respondent-University has not denied the authenticity of the verification form, but has only stated,  that since the answer book of the Education 2nd  paper of B.A. part I of the petitioner had not been received, hence she has been awarded zero mark out of 50 in the said paper. In the facts and circumstances of this case, as also on perusal of the verification form which clearly shows that the petitioner had appeared in Education 2nd Paper of B.A. Part I Examination, 2004,  it was wrong to award  zero mark, out of 50 in the said paper to the petitioner.  Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-University has very fairly stated that in such circumstances where the answer copy of a student is lost or not available, the said student is given marks in the said paper on the basis of average marks obtained by him in other papers. In the present case the petitioner  had obtained 18 marks out of 50  in Education 1st  paper and thus, as per the own statement  of Sri Neeraj Tiwari, the petitioner would be entitled to be awarded similar 18 marks in Education 2nd  paper also. Since the answer copy of the Education 2nd Paper of the petitioner is not available, the petitioner ought to have been awarded the same and, accordingly, the mark-sheet of the petitioner requires to be corrected to hold that the petitioner had obtained 36 marks out of 100 marks in Education papers, which is more than the required pass marks.

As regards the other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to marks obtained by her in Sanskrit papers, the original answer books along with the question papers of Sanskrit have been produced before me. The dispute is thus now only confined to the answers of Sanskrit papers in which, according to the petitioner, she has been awarded lesser marks than what she was entitled to get.

As an example, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the answer of the petitioner to question no. 8 of Sanskrit 1st Paper was absolutely correct. The said question is in two parts and according to the petitioner, she was entitled to full five marks whereas only one mark had been awarded. This Court does not have expertise to examine the answer copy  and specially that of Sanskrit papers. However, two Senior counsel of this Court, who are well versed in Sanskrit, were requested to examine the answers given by the petitioner to question no. 8 of Sanskrit 1st Paper. Both the learned counsel stated that answer to the said question were absolutely correct, and the petitioner should have been awarded full marks. This was done only to find out as to whether prima facie the evaluation of the answer copy of the petitioner had been correctly done by the respondent-University or not. In view of the marks awarded to the petitioner in response to the answer to question no. 8 of Sanskrit 1st paper, which prima facie has been done wrongly, I am of the opinion that all the answers of both the Sanskrit papers of the petitioner require to be re-evaluated  afresh by the University itself.

Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-University, has very fairly stated  that the University  would be prepared to re-evaluate the answer copy of Sanskrit papers within the time  granted  by this Court, and in case  if the petitioner is found  to have obtained pass marks, she would be permitted to appear in B.A. Part II examination in the next year, i.e. 2006, as it was not possible  for her to appear in 2005 examination (as prayed by the petitioner) as the same has already been held in May, 2005.

In view of the above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed with the following directions:-

1. The petitioner shall be treated as having obtained 36 marks in Education subject and her marksheet be corrected accordingly.

2. The answer copy of the petitioner with regard to Sanskrit 1st and 2nd papers shall be re-evaluated by the respondent-University within a period of three weeks from today. After re-evaluation of the answer copy, in case if the petitioner has been found to have obtained pass  marks in Sanskrit, she shall be declared ''pass' in B.A. Part I Examination 2004 and shall be issued a fresh corrected mark-sheet within a week thereafter.  

3. It is further directed that in case if the petitioner is declared pass in B.A. Part I Examination, 2004, she shall be permitted   to appear in B.A. Part II Examination, 2006 as a private candidate.

In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

The original copies, produced by learned counsel for the respondents and taken on record by this Court on 29.8.2005, are being returned to Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

For necessary compliance of this order, let certified copies of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties within three days on payment of usual charges.  

Dt/-30.8.2005

Ru


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.