PUHAZH G P Vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE VI
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
PUHAZH G P
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner is seeking admission to the Ph.D Programme offered by the respondent / University. He falls short by 0.17 grade points.
(2.) What happened was that the petitioner undertook the M.Phil course in the said university. The said course requires the submission of a dissertation. This has to be evaluated as per the ordinance relating to the award of the Master of Philosophy Degree. Clause 11 of the said Ordinance reads as under :-
11.1 Subject to confirmation by the Committee, the method of evaluation in the courses leading to the M.Phil. degree shall be prescribed and assessment conducted by the Department/Centre concerned.
11.2 The dissertation shall be examined by two examiners atleast one of whom shall be a person not on the staff of the University and or on the Committee of the Centre/Board of the School concerned to be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendations of the Academic Council, the Board and the Committee for Advanced Studies and Research of the School concerned. Provided that in case of difference of opinion between the two examiners with regard to the evaluation of dissertation, the Dean of the School shall arrange to have placed before the Committee the evaluation reports of both the examiners for its consideration.
Provided further that after due consideration of the reports, the Committee may recommend the appointment of a third examiner (not connected with the University) in the manner laid down in clause 11.2 above for the evaluation of the dissertation.
Provided further that if the recommendation of the third examiner is in the negative, the student concerned shall not be awarded the degree of M.Phil.
11.3. The courses and dissertation of the student shall be graded on a ten point scale, that is : Grade Grade Point A+ 9 A 8 A- 7 B+ 6 B 5 B- 4 C+ 3 C 2 C- 1 F Fail
(3.) The petitioner's dissertation was evaluated by two examiners as provided in clause 11.2 of the said ordinance. The internal examiner awarded the petitioner the grade of A- which is equivalent to grade point 7. The external examiner, however, awarded the grade of C+ equivalent to grade point 3. As a result of this, the petitioner became entitled to the award of the M.Phil decree. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there was a difference in the grades awarded by the two examiners, it would amount to "difference of opinion" as appearing in the first proviso to clause 11.2 of the ordinance. And, therefore, it would be necessary for the Committee to send the dissertation for evaluation by a third examiner to be appointed in the manner laid down in clause 11.2. The petitioner is, therefore, seeking a direction that his dissertation, in view of this alleged difference of opinion, be sent to a third examiner so that proper grades be awarded to him. He submits that, in case, the grades are awarded by the third examiner then the average of the best between the first and second examiners and the third examiner would be taken and that grade would be awarded to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is confident that he would receive a higher grade than that awarded by the external examiner and since the margin of difference between the requirement for the Ph.D. course and what the petitioner has achieved is very small, he would be able to cover that deficit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.