Sh. Pankaj Dahiya And Anr. vs Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 270 Del

JUDGMENT

Gita Mittal, J.

1. By these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have sought the following prayers :-

''1. To forward answer Books/sheets of Mid-semester and End semester of Theory-I paper (Eigth semester) of both the Petitioners for re-examining the answer and revaluation and rechecking, to an independent authority either I.I.T. or any other independent and Neutral Authority.

2. Forward answer Book/Sheet of Mid-semester and End semester of Theory-II paper (Eighth semester) of Petitioner no. 2 for re-examining the answers and revaluation and rechecking of the answer Book, to be forwarded to an independent authority either I.I.T. or any other independent and Neutral Authority.

3. To forward the answer Book/Sheet of PR.I in Automobile Engineering of (Eighth Semester) of petitioner no. 1 for re-examining the answers of written Test of PR.I and revaluation and rechecking of the answer Book, to be forwarded to an independent authority either I.I.T. or any other independent and Neutral Authority.

4. To conduct viva-test of PR.I. In (Automobile Engineering) of Eighth Semester of Petitioner no. 1, from an Independent Authority preferably I.I.T.

5. To conduct fair evaluation of internal, written and Viva-voice and practical-I (Automobile Engg.) of Eighth semester of Petitioners by the Respondent Authorities and to issue consolidated mark sheet to be Petitioners, declaring the rules of Respondent Ultra-Virus the law.''

2. The writ petition has been filed on the premise that the petitioners were admitted to the Delhi College of Engineering in July, 2000 to the Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering. The admitted position is that the course of the petitioners was divided into eight semesters with exams being conducted at the end of each six monthly semester. However, there is material divergence on the pleas set up by the petitioners and by the respondents with regard to their academic record. Whereas the petitioners contend that they have maintained a very good academic record throughout their seven semesters as well as a good performance in extra-curricular activities, the same is vehemently disputed on the part of the respondents.

3. According to the petitioner no. 1, he was selected as President of the Student Council of the Delhi College of Engineering and also worked in student welfare and remained a member of the Council. He claims that he was declared as successful trainee during the academic training with Maruti Udyog Limited through campus selection while undergoing his engineering course. The petitioner has also claimed that he had cleared the theory paper of Automobiles in the 8th semester i.e. the theory 2 paper.

According to the petitioner no. 1 because he qualified the theory test and interview conducted by M/s Maruti Udyog Limited, got placement with this company and was appointed as a graduate engineer trainee where he was selected with Maruti Udyog Limited in which he is working since 4th June, 2004

4. The petitioner no. 2 has based his claim on the plea that he was one of the most efficient participants who participated in manufacturing a formula car of his own design and model while undergoing the engineering course. The petitioner no. 2 submits that he was also part of the team which visited foreign countries twice representing new achievements of the Delhi College of Engineering. It is claimed that he is an active member of defianz racing and was serving the team as the team coordinator. The petitioner no. 2 claims that he was the recipient of the Best endeavor Award in the year 2003 in an international event. He claims that he was responsible for organising the personality development programme in the Delhi College of Engineering for the last two years and that he had successfully qualified all seven semesters conducted by the Delhi College of Engineering in his Bachelor of Engineering course without any back papers. The petitioner no. 2 claims to have got widespread coverage about his project in various newspapers, magazines and news channels for the last two years and that he was successfully working as a graduate engineer trainee in a British company namely M/s D.S. Evans.

5. Both petitioners had reached the eighth semester which was the last semester of the course in the year 2004 and if they had passed all the examinations, they would have qualified with the bachelor degree in mechanical engineering by June, 2004 It has been brought to my notice that the eighth semester in the course consists of a total of three theory papers, one practical paper, one project and one last training (i.e. winter). As such the petitioners were to undertake a total of six papers in their 8th semester.

Both petitioners have contended that they appeared in all the papers and performed very well and were sure that they would secure good marks in the papers with first position as they had appeared with full preparation.

6. However, to the shock of the petitioners, upon announcement of result, both of them were declared unsuccessful in the Theory-1 paper. The petitioner no. 2 was declared unsuccessful even in the theory-2 paper. The petitioners submit that they had attempted and answered all questions correctly as they were having good knowledge in the subject. Reliance has been placed on their claimed previous academic record as well as on their devotion towards studies. According to the petitioners even students who were having very little knowledge about the subject had cleared the Theory-1 and Theory-2 papers. Petitioners have based their claim for entitlement to the degree on the plea that they were meritorious students who were placed with companies of reputation as graduate engineer trainees with effect from June, 2004

7. The petitioner no. 1 has raised a plea of mala fide against Professor Naveen Kumar arrayed as respondent no. 3 herein on the ground that the petitioners were wrongfully refused admit cards to appear in the last semester. Petitioner no. 1 submits that he had appeared in the practical test for his 8th semester held on 5th May, 2004 which consisted of a written portion and a viva voce. According to petitioner no. 1, after he had taken the written portion of the practical test, he was not permitted to take the viva voce by respondent no. 3.

Thereafter, the petitioners were supposed to get their admit cards on 7th May, 2004 for appearing in the university theory examinations but the same was refused to the petitioner no. 1.

8. According to the petitioner no. 1, he had moved a writ petition bearing writ petition no. 7271/2004 entitled Pankaj Dahiya v Government of NCT of Delhi before this court for issuance of an admit card and for conducting a fair evaluation of the written paper as well as conducting his viva voce which had been refused according to him on 5th May, 2004 However, it transpires that the petitioner had been expelled from the college. This Hon'ble Court directed the petitioner no. 1 to tender an apology before the Principal and College Authorities of the Delhi College of Engineering for his activities. Upon tendering an unconditional apology before the college authorities, Principal and professors of the college, the authorities agreed to give the admit card to the petitioner subject to withdrawal of the writ petition by the petitioner no. 1. Accordingly, the writ petition was withdrawn on 12th May, 2004

Thereafter, the petitioners were issued the admit cards and were permitted to appear in the 8th semester examination held in May to June, 2004

9. Upon declaration of the result which was as afore recorded, both the petitioners applied for rechecking/revaluation on 28th July, 2004 and again sought re-examination of their unsuccessful papers by an independent authority vide a representation dated 2nd August, 2004 As the respondents did not agree to the request made by the petitioners, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the directions set out above.

10. The respondents have vehemently disputed the allegations made against them and have stated that the petitioners did not have the professed academic record. It is pointed out that the petitioners had failed in the earlier papers as well and that the conduct of the petitioner no. 1 had also not been good inasmuch as he is alleged to have been involved in fraudulently opening a bank account in the name of the College Cultural Council wherein sponsorship cheques were deposited and the amount was fraudulently withdrawn. It is further pointed out that the case in this behalf is pending with the Delhi police for investigations. The respondents have further pointed out that the petitioner no. 1 had been elected as the president of the students council with the union of the Delhi College of Engineering. However, on account of misconduct, he was debarred from presidentship with effect from 7th November, 2003.

The respondents pointed out that the programme undertaken with the Maruti Udyog Limited was part of the curriculum and there was no special merit involved in the petitioner participating in the same. Other students had also undertaken the same training programme and were granted certificates which are duly issued to students by the organisation. So far as his academic record is concerned the petitioner no. 1 is stated to have earlier also failed in the Practical 4 of the second semester which had been held in May/June, 2001 and again in the Theory-5 of the sixth semester examination held in May/June, 2003.

11. So far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, he is also stated to be part of a team of 16 students which developed the formula racing car and according to the respondents, his academic record is also not good. According to the respondents, the petitioner no. 2 has passed one paper of the 2nd semester and two papers of the 3rd semester in second attempt.

12. The respondents point out that there was no mala fide in refusing to give the admit card inasmuch as the petitioner no. 1 was expelled from the college on disciplinary grounds and were debarred from appearing in the examination of the college which was to be held from May, 2004 However, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the same after he tendered a written apology referred to by the petitioners.

13. It has been pointed out that examinations are held by the Delhi University. So far as the rechecking of the papers is concerned, it is submitted that rechecking is carried out according to the rules of the Delhi University. There is no provision in the rules for rechecking of practical papers and rechecking is permissible for theory papers only. It is submitted that unsuccessful candidates are allowed to reappear in the failed papers as and when the examination for such papers are held as per the scheme of examination applicable the to BE course of the University.

The candidate is required to pass the theory and practical examinations separately.

With regard to the scheme of examination, the respondents have pointed out that the Committee of Courses and Studies in each department appoints the Evaluation Review Committee (ERC). There is a set procedure for evaluation of marks which is dealt with the Evaluation Review Committee (ERC) pertaining to the course in question. One of the functions of this ERC is to ''recommend appointment of paper setters/examiners of various examinations''. Dissatisfied candidate are required to apply for rechecking to the Delhi University.

14. The respondents contend that there was no mala fide against the petitioners and that they were permitted to take the examinations without hindrance and their answer sheets were evaluated fairly. It is submitted that the rechecking or evaluation has to be dealt with by the Evaluation Review Committee in accordance with the rules of the Delhi University and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner seeking the evaluation by an independent authority being contrary to the applicable rules of the Delhi University, cannot be granted.

So far as the prayer with regard to holding of the practical examination is concerned, it is pointed out that rechecking of practicals is not permissible under the rules as the same would tantamount to re-conduct of the viva voce which is not permissible. According to the respondents, rechecking of the practicals is not permissible as the practical examination is based jointly on the conduct of the given practical and oral (viva voce) examination which is conducted in the presence of a panel of examiner. It has been submitted that the unsuccessful candidates are allowed to reappear in the papers in which they have failed and the examination for such papers are held as per the scheme of examination applicable to the BE courses of the university.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have dealt at length on the aforestated issues and have taken me through the record of the case. I find that the writ petition was first listed before this court on 10th September, 2004 and while issuing notice to the respondents to show cause, this court had directed the respondent no. 2 to produce in court the Theory Paper-1 and Practical Paper-1 of the petitioner no. 1. The respondents were also directed to produce Theory Papers 1 and 2 of the petitioner no. 2 relating to the exams of the Eighth (end) semester on the next date of hearing.

16. Accordingly, the respondents have produced the aforestated papers before this court on the 28th September, 2004 when the following order was recorded :-

''28.09.2004

Present : Ms. Suman Kapoor for the petitioner.

Mr. V.K. Dewan for respondents no.1 to 4

Mr. Anurag Mathur for respondent no. 5.

WP (C) NO. 14719-20/2004 and CM 10511/2004

Pursuant to order dated 10th September, 2004, counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4 has produced four answer sheets of petitioners 1 and 2 relating to the Exams of Eighth (End) Semester. Perusal of the answer sheets shows that one of the answer sheets has not been evaluated.

In these circumstances, it would be proper that all the answer sheets re re-examined/re-evaluated. Ordered accordingly.

The Dean, Faculty of Technology, Delhi University, is directed to assign the answer sheets to Netaji Subhash Chand Institute of Technology for re-examination/re-evaluation with a direction that senior-most professor of that institute shall re-examine/re-evaluate the answer sheets. This process shall be completed within four weeks. The result of the re-evaluation shall be placed before this court o or before the next. The answer sheets produced in Court have been placed in a sealed cover and returned to counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 for the aforesaid purpose.

List on 3rd November, 2004

A copy of the order be sent to the Dean, Faculty of Technology, Delhi University for compliance.

dusty to counsel for the parties.

Sd/-

C.K. Mahajan, J

September 28, 2004''

17. Thereafter, the respondents had taken steps for getting the answer sheets of the petitioner re-examined/revaluated in terms of the order dated 28th September, 2004 The same were produced in court in sealed cover and were so produced on the 3rd November, 2004 when orders with regard to holding of the viva voce test of the petitioner no. 1 were passed.

In terms of the order passed, the respondents have also conducted the viva voce test of the petitioner no. 1 in the paper of automotive engineering and combustion examination on the 30th September, 2004 The result of the same has been handed over in court in a sealed cover as was directed on the 2nd December, 2004

18. The respondents have also placed before me the original mark sheets duly evaluated by the professors of the Netaji Subhash Chand Institute of Technology in sealed cover as directed. The original answer sheets of the two petitioners have also been per used by me.

19. I have considered the records of the case as well as the original records placed before me. In order to appreciate the performance of the petitioners, strong reliance has been placed on their past academic records. The same is not only misconceived but also misplaced as it appears that both the petitioners have earlier also failed in different papers. The petitioner no. 1 has failed earlier in Practical-4 of the second semester examination held in May/June, 2001 and again in Theory-5 of the sixth semester held in May/June, 2003. Similarly, the petitioner no. 2 is stated to have failed in Theory-4 of the second semester examination held in May/June, 2001 and again in Theory-1 and Theory-5 of the third semester examination held in November/December 2001. The petitioner no. 2 is stated to have passed one paper of the second semester and two papers of the third semester in the second attempt. Therefore, so far as the past academic record is concerned, it cannot be said that the petitioners were consistently students of merit and therefore, the result scored by them in the final semester deserved to be rejected on this ground alone.

20. The petitioners have rested their case on bald allegations of mala fides without any specifics in the pleadings or any material on record. The respondents have justified the action taken by them against the petitioners on account of the conduct of the petitioners. The petitioners themselves have referred to the proceedings in civil writ no. 7271/2004 entitled Pankaj Dahiya v. Government of NCT of Delhi wherein the petitioners no. 1 was directed to tender apology before the authorities of the Delhi college of Engineering. It is only on account of the apology having been accepted that the petitioner was granted the admit card. Without any specific allegation, the petitioners have merely sought to assert as an innuendo that there might have been partiality in checking of the eighth semester papers.

Even this suggestion is wholly unjustified inasmuch as the petitioners admittedly had not passed in more than one paper and there is not a whisper of an allegation in terms of the particulars of the persons responsible for having failed them in the respective papers. In these circumstances the allegations of possible partiality are found to be wholly unsubstantiated and devoid of merit.

21. Every academic institution has its own rules for conduct of examinations, rechecking and revaluation of results. Respondent no. 1 also has such rules in place. There is no challenge to the scheme of examination or the rules relating to either the examination or rechecking/revaluation in the instant petition. In order to ensure academic discipline, it is necessary that such rules are strictly adhered to and are not permitted to be violated.

22. I find that in the instant case, orders were made in favor of the petitioners on the 28th September, 2004 with regard to revaluation and re-examination of their answer sheets in the papers in which the petitioners have failed. This revaluation was to be done by the senior most professors of the Netaji Subhash Chand Institute of Technology. Similarly, directions for holding the viva voce of the petitioner in the practical examination in which he said he was not permitted to participate on the 5th May, 2004 was directed to be conducted on the 2nd December, 2004 Undoubtedly, these orders were as an exception and made in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The original records, the result of the fresh viva voce examination as well as the rechecked answer sheets have been placed before me in sealed cover.

23. Perusal of the answer sheet shows that the respondent no. 1 had concealed the marks given by the original examiner by placing the same with black sticker/tape over them so that the same was not visible to any person before sending the answer sheets for the rechecking in terms of the order passed by this court. The revaluator has put his assessment on a fresh coversheet. There is no allegation of bias or mala fide against the examiners who have conducted the rechecking of the theory paper or the viva voce of the petitioner no. 1.

24. I find that in the industrial engineering paper, out of a total of 100 marks, whereas the petitioner no. 1 had originally scored a total of 29 marks i.e. 12 in the theory paper and 17 in the internal assessment. Upon revaluation by Emeritus Professor N.K. Tewari of the Netaji Subhash Chand Institute of Technology (former Professor and Head, Mech. Engineering Department of IIT, Delhi), the petitioner no. 1 has scored only 28 marks i.e. 11 in the theory and 17 in the internal assessment.

  Theory Paper    Internal Assessment       Total Original Marks


               Marks on Revaluation


 

25. Similarly, the respondents were directed to conduct a fresh viva voce of the petitioner in the practical examination of automotive engineering/combustion engine. Out of the total marks of 100 in this practical, 70 marks are earmarked for the practical examination and 30 marks towards the internal assessment. Originally, the petitioner no. 1 had scored 16 marks in the practical paper and 5 marks in the internal assessment. Upon the revaluation by Professor S.K. Sinha of the Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology, the petitioner scored only 15 marks in the practical paper and five marks in the internal assessment.

It is noteworthy that in the viva voce of the petitioner held on 30th December, 2004, the petitioner scored only 10 marks out of 40. This viva voce test was conducted by Dr. Surjit Angra, Readers of the Mechanical Engineering Department, NIT, Kurukshetra as the External Examiner and Prof. S. Maji and Shri R.K. Singh as the internal examiners.

26. Similarly, the papers of the petitioner no. 2 have also been revaluated as directed by the court. In the paper of industrial engineering out of the maximum of 100 marks, the petitioner no. 2 had originally scored a total of 28 marks i.e. he was awarded 15 marks in the theory paper and 13 in the internal assessment.

Upon rechecking there was decrease in the marks awarded to him. The papers was revaluated in terms of the order of this court by the aforestated professor of the Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology when the petitioner has been awarded a total of 26.5 marks. The petitioner no. 2 was awarded 13.5 marks in the theory paper and 13 in the internal assessment.

In his paper of metrology, the petitioner no. 2 originally scored a total of 21 marks out of 100 i.e. 12 marks in the theory paper and 9 marks in the internal assessment.

Upon rechecking by the respondent as per their rules the petitioner's marks increased to only 23 when he was found to have scored 14 marks in the theory paper and 9 in the internal assessment.

Upon revaluation in terms of the order of this court by the professor of the Netaji Subhash Chand Institute of Technology, the petitioner no. 2 has scored 26 marks out of 100 i.e. 17 marks in the theory paper and 9 in the internal assessment.

27. In view of the aforestated position, the final result of the petitioners despite revaluations has remained unchanged and they are found to have failed in the papers even upon revaluation of their papers by outside experts and even a fresh viva voce.

There is yet another reason why the prayers made in the writ petition with regard to the practical examination could not have been granted. The petitioners in the earlier writ petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7271/2004 the petitioner had, inter alia, made the following prayers :-

''3. To direct the Respondent No. 2 to take VIVA test in addition to practical held on 5.5.04.

4. To direct the Respondents to do fair evaluation of the written/practical and VIVA-Voice examination with respect to whole of the Eighth Semester for B.E. Degree Course.''

Admittedly such prayer was not granted. Therefore the present writ petition seeking the same prayer could not have been filed. However pursuant to the interim orders made, the respondents have even conducted the fresh viva voce. The result of the petitioners despite revaluation by outside experts has remained the same.

28. I have no reason to hold that there was any mala fide on the part of the respondents in either conducting of theory and practical examination or their assessment by the examiners of the respondents. The petitioners have been found to have failed miserably in the papers even upon revaluation of the mark sheets. The allegations made by the petitioners are against the Faculty members or the respondents are bereft of any substance and are devoid of merit. I have no hesitation in holding that the answer sheets of the petitioners had been evaluated fairly as per a genuine assessment by the examiners of the respondents.

29. The respondents have stated that the unsuccessful candidates are allowed to reappear in the paper in which they have failed as and when the examination for such papers are held as per the scheme of examination applicable to BE Courses of the university. Consequently, the petitioners will be able to take the examination in accordance with the applicable rules in the papers in which they have failed.

30. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioners shall be at liberty to take examination in the papers in which they have failed in the next examination conducted by the respondents in accordance with the applicable statutory provision.

In case there has been any delay in complying with any procedural requirement on account of the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondents shall permit the petitioners to complete the same within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the judgment in the instant case.

This writ petition is dismissed.

The respondents will be entitled to cost of the proceedings which are quantified at Rs. 2,000/-