SANJEEV KUMAR SAHU Vs. INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Sanjeev Kumar Sahu
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner is a student of the course leading to B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree and he is studying in second year. He appeared for the examination in the
subject called EMA-111 (Engineering Mathematics) in the main examination of
first semester (odd semester) and he secured 26 marks out of 50 marks. The
petitioner thinking that his answer script in the subject EMA-111 (Engineering
Mathematics) was not properly assessed, sought revaluation of the answer script
in the said subject. After the revaluation of his answer script in the subject EMA-
111 (Engineering Mathematics), he secured 20 marks out of 50 marks, thereby he was declared failed in the subject. In the circumstance, he has filed this writ
petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to the
respondents to declare the petitioner passed in the subject of EMA-111
(Engineering Mathematics). The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the
respondents to produce his answer script before the Court.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner did very well in the subject of EME-111 (Engineering Mathematics)
and that he could not have been given 20 marks out of 50 marks under any circumstance.
It is quite often said and reiterated by the Courts that in academic matters, the Courts should be very slow to interfere with the affairs of the University
and the decisions and assessment of academic bodies. It is not the case of the
petitioner that the person who revalued the answer script in the subject of EMA-
111 (Engineering Mathematics) was biased against him or that he deliberately and vindictively has given less marks than what the petitioner has actually deserved.
The self-assessment of the petitioner that he should get more marks than 20 out of
50 marks is of no significance and is wholly irrelevant to the decision-making. The petitioner cannot be a Judge of his own cause. His knowledge and performance
in the examination is to be tested by the University Authorities.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would strenuously content that the Court atleast summon the answer script and peruse the same. There is no need
for this Court to pursue the answer script. It is not the case of the petitioner that
the marks awarded by the examiner are not added-up properly. His specific
grievance is that the answer script is not correctly assessed. Be that as it may, it is
fairly well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court starting from the
Judgment in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc.1
that it is not the right of any student who appears for an examination either to seek
re-totaling of the marks obtained by him or revaluation of the answer script unless
the rules and regulations provide for it. The High Court is not an expert to assess
the answer script in the subject of EMA-111 (Engineering Mathematics). The
assessment of answer script in the subject of EMA- 111 (Engineering Mathematics)
is verymuch within the domain of the expert in that discipline. The High Court by
merely perusing the answer script would not be in a position to decide whether the
answer script is properly assessed or not. Lastly, learned counsel would request
that he may be permitted to make a representation to the respondents. It is for the
respondents to consider the representation, if such representation is made, but the
Court would not be justified either in permitting the petitioner to make representation
or directing the respondents to consider such representation, because, no law is
brought to the notice of the Court which enables the petitioner to make a
representation in a situation like this and which obliges the respondents to consider
such representation as a matter of legal obligation, in the result, the writ petition is
devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.