Arun Tandon - (1.) -Petitioner had appeared in LL.M. 2nd Year Examination of the Year 2003 conducted by the respondent University. The answer sheets of all such students including the petitioner, who had appeared in the Environmental Law paper of the said examination was examined by one Dr. P. C. Vishwakarma. The Vice-Chancellor of the University, for the reason that exceptionally higher marks have been awarded to the students, decided to get the answer sheets of all the students in respect of said paper of Environmental Law re-checked by another examiner.
(2.) CERTAIN students, who had received more than pass marks in the said paper on the basis of the marks awarded by Dr. P. C. Vishwakarma, filed writ petition before the Court, being Writ Petition No. 60371 of 2005, with the contention that the Vice-Chancellor has no jurisdiction to direct re-evaluation of the answer sheets once the same has been examined by a duly appointed examiner. The contention so raised was repelled and the Court held that Vice-Chancellor has ample jurisdiction to direct re-evaluation of the answer sheets, if he is satisfied that the marks awarded by the examiner concerned are not based on the fair assessment of the answers given by the student concerned. The Court, therefore, rejected the contention so raised and held that there is nothing illegal in re-evaluation of the answer sheets as directed by the Vice-Chancellor. The other objection raised by the counsel for the petitioners before the Hon'ble single Judge in the earlier writ petition was that the person, who has re-examined the answer sheets for the second time, was not approved as an examiner by the Examination Committee and, therefore, such a person could not under law re-evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioners. The Court did not decide the said issue finally. However, it was recorded that in case the second examiner has not been approved by the Examination Committee, the matter may be placed before the Examination Committee for taking final decision in the matter. The Court in its operative portion of the judgment provided that so far as the petitioners of the writ petition are concerned, the action taken by the Vice Chancellor be treated as provisional in nature subject to the order which may be passed by the Examination Committee.
(3.) THE records were accordingly placed before the Examination Committee in compliance to the judgment of this Court. THE Examination Committee found that examiner, who had re-valuated the answer sheets for 2nd time, was not approved as an examiner by the Examination Committee and, therefore, he could not lawfully evaluate the answer sheets of students of LL.M, as has been done. Accordingly the University took a decision to get fresh evaluation of the answer sheets of all the students by an examiner duly approved by the Examination Committee. A third examiner was appointed, who evaluated the answer sheets of all the students of LL.M. 2nd year in the concerned subject and awarded marks. This third evaluation of the answer sheets by an examiner approved by the Examination Committee is being objected to by the petitioner only on the ground that present petitioner was not a party in the Writ Petition No. 60371 of 2005 wherein orders were passed resulting in re-evaluation of the answer sheets for the third time and, therefore, the judgment of the Court will not be binding upon the petitioner nor the right of the petitioner can be adversely effected because of 3rd evaluation. It is settled that judgment of a Court shall not bind a person who is not a party before the Court unless specifically directed. However, the Court is also conscious of the fact that the answer sheets of a student in respect of an University examination must be evaluated by a duly appointed examiner. The power in that regard vest with the Examination Committee. In such circumstances, the Examination Committee, having regard to the fact that the second examiner who had not been approved by the Examination Committee as an examiner for the University examinations, rightly held that he could not lawfully evaluate the answer sheets. The University has not committed any mistake in directing evaluation of the answer sheets of all the students of LL.M. Final Year by an approved examiner duly appointed by the Examination Committee.;