Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THE issue in the writ petition is with regard to the marks of the petitioner in the paper Physics Part I of B.Sc. Part -I (three years graduation course). The petitioner is a student of the S.S. Jain Subodh College, Jaipur which is affiliated to the University of Rajasthan.
(2.) THE petitioner submits that he wrote the B.Sc. Part -I examination, 2013. The result of the said examination was declared by the University of Rajasthan on 10.1.2014. The petitioner was declared passed including in the subject of Physics where he secured 51 marks out of 100 marks. The petitioner was however dissatisfied with having been marked '00' in Physics Part -I of B.Sc. Part -I examination. Consequent to which in terms of the University of Rajasthan Ordinance he applied for a re -evaluation in the said paper. In the re -evaluation the petitioner obtained '6' marks as against '00' in the first instance. Petitioner submits that his being marked '00' marks in the purported original evaluation and 06 marks on the purported re -evaluation in Physics Part -I of B.Sc. Part -I paper was wholly arbitrary as the petitioner otherwise is a good student and was expecting 25 marks out of 35 marks in the said paper. In fact he secured 23 and 22 marks in Physics Part -II and Part -III of the said examination The petitioner stands also dissatisfied with the result of re -valuation of the answer -book of P Physics Part -I of B.Sc. Part -I paper. And therefore resorted to the right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2005') and obtained a photo copy of his answer book of Physics -I of B.Sc. Part -I. It has been submitted that on obtaining a photo copy of his answer -book under the Act of 2005 of the paper in issue, the petitioner was shocked to find that his copy has not been checked at all by the Examiner/s of the University both during the initial evaluation and subsequent re -evaluation when he attempted each question and his answers thereto were to be evaluated individually and marked at the end of each answer, it was not so done. It has been submitted that the petitioner attempted the requisite five questions out of ten in the paper in issue i.e. question No. 1(a), 1(b), 3(a), 3(b), 5(a), 5(b), 7(a), 7(b), 10(a) and 10(b). None of the answers to the aforesaid questions were individually marked and in -fact the entire answer -book does not indicate any marking and application of mind. The petitioner was marked only on the title page qua the questions attempted. It has been submitted that the manner of checking of the petitioner's answer -sheet of Physics -I of B.Sc. Part -I paper was wholly illegal, arbitrary, vitiated by complete non -application of mind, violative of the petitioner's right to a fair evaluation of his answer -sheet in terms of the instructions of the University of Rajasthan to its examiners to mark the students for every answer to the questions attempted and tantamounts to no evaluation at all in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is therefore entitled to a direction that the answer -book of the petitioner of Physics Part -I of B.Sc Part -I paper be re -evaluated by another examiner and the petitioner's mark -sheet accordingly modified. Reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of the University of Rajasthan. It has been submitted that the claim of the petitioner for a second re -evaluation is de hors the University of Rajasthan obtaining rules and is in contravention of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rachit Sharma would submit that the University of Rajasthan Ordinances provide that no complaint regarding the assessment of the answer -book by the examiner is to be entertained. It has been submitted that the assessment of the answer -book depends on the nature and the practice of the concerned examiner. Every examiner has his own technique for scrutiny of the answer -book. Merely the fact that the petitioner had attempted all requisite five questions did not necessarily entail that he was entitled to higher marks than the ones that had been awarded in the course of re -evaluation. Reference to Ordinance 157 of Chapter -XXX of the University of Rajasthan Hand -book Part -II Volume -II has been made which provides for re -evaluation and clearly states that every answer -book shall be re -evaluated by one examiner only. It has been submitted that the petitioner's answer -book was re -evaluated whereupon he was awarded 06 marks in Physics Part -I of B.Sc Part -I. It has been submitted that as the enhancement in the petitioner's marks was not 20% over the maximum marks, there was no occasion to refer the matter for the second re -evaluation. Submitting that the petitioner's claim is based on surmises and conjectures, Sr. Counsel has prayed that the petition be dismissed.
(3.) I have perused the photo copy of the answer -book of the petitioner in respect of Physics -I of B.Sc Part -I paper. It is quite clear that none of the five questions answered by the petitioner each in two parts has been independently evaluated by the examiner -even though on the title page of the answer -sheet the petitioner has been marked for each of the questions attempted by him. Instruction No. 16 to the examiners for theory examination issued by the University of Rajasthan reads as under: "16. Marks should be awarded in legible figures at the end of each answer in the margin. Only red ink, red pencil or red ball pen should be used for the purpose. Where a question consists of parts and separate marks are assigned to them, marks should be awarded to each part separately. An answer which deserves no marks should not only be crossed but a 'Zero' should also be awarded in it. There should be clear signs in the answer -books to indicate that the examiner has actually gone through every answer carefully. Marks awarded to each question as a whole (even if it is 'Zero') should be entered on the title cover of the answer -books in the relevant column and then totalled at the bottom both in words and figures. The necessity of correct posting and totalling of marks can not be over emphasised. The examiner should put his signature on the title cover. Corrections or alternations in marking, if any, should be duly initialled.";