Excerpt
Karnataka High court allowed a Writ Petition filed by a 21 years-old student under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to produce the answer script of the petitioner and to be marked by a 3rd evaluator.
Petitioner’s Submission
The Petitioner submitted that he has failed in three papers (Anatomy, Biochemistry, and Physiology), and the evaluation done by two evaluators varies to a large extent. The counsel of the petitioner submitted the marks awarded by evaluator 1 and evaluator 2 in each paper. While placing the answer scripts on record, the learned counsel of the petitioner pointed out that one evaluator gave ‘2’ marks in a question, and the second evaluator would award ‘0’ marks for the same question. Further, it was pointed out that there is no objectivity in the valuation of the mark sheet and it is fairly erratic and subjective in nature. The counsel of the petitioner took reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High court in a writ petition (W.P NO. 206907/2015) dated 02.06.2016.
Grounds of Challenge
The petition was challenged by the Respondents on the grounds that the rules of examination prohibit third evaluation of the answer scripts if the difference between the marks of two evaluations is not more than 15%. Therefore, they seek the dismissal of the writ petition. Further, they challenged the reference to the W.P NO. 206907/2015 arguing that the mentioned petition was passed on concession and not on merit. Further, they took reliance on Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, by emphasizing that the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided that the courts should not re-evaluate answer scripts and “academics matter are best left to academics”.
Petitioner’s Prayers
In the writ petition, the Petitioner sought to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to get the answer sheets of the petitioner in respect of all the three papers and to be re-evaluated by any subject expert in the interest of justice and equity.
Court’s Observation
The single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court observed that there is an unexplainable margin in the marks awarded by two evaluators in some of the answers. The court also pointed out the questions in which there is a substantial difference in the marks awarded by two evaluators. The court was of the opinion that the Respondents should re-evaluate the answer scripts at the cost of the petitioner. Further, the court observed that the judgment cited by the respondents is irrelevant to the facts of the case while the one referred by the Petitioners covers the issue in all respects.
Court’s Judgment
The court allowed the writ petition and ordered that the Respondents should re-evaluate the answer scripts of the Petitioner by the subject experts other than those who have already marked the sheets within one week of the order.
Click here to view full judgment.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
