Sandeep Sharma vs University Of Delhi And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1943 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The writ petitioner seeks quashing of a letter dated 18.10.2006 issued by the Assistant Controller of Examination, Delhi University (hereafter referred to as "the University") and a direction that he ought to be awarded the degree in graduation. In the alternative he seeks a direction that he should be internally assessed and awarded marks.

2. The petitioner was admitted in the B.A. (Pass) course in Ram Lal Anand College (Evening) during the Academic Year 1998-1999. Ordinance VIII Clause 2 of the University prescribes the period for completing the course and qualifying, as six years. Ordinance VIII(2) reads as follows:

(2) Subject to the provisions of Sub-clause (1) above, no person shall be admitted as a candidate for the examinations noted below after the lapse of period specified against each examination:

B.A. (Pass) Part III : Six years after admission to the first year class and five years after admission to the II Year Class.

3. In the petitioner's case, the period expired in the Academic Year 2003-2004. He represented to the University, seeking as a special case, opportunity to qualify the B.A. (Pass) Part III English A paper, as he had otherwise qualified in 11 papers (out of a total 12 papers) of B.A. (Pass) course. The University granted permission by its letter dated 26.11.2005, to appear and qualify in the B.A. (Pass) Part III English A paper, as a special case. The petitioner however was unable to appear. He alleges that the communication was received late. He therefore elected to appear in the next examination.

4. It is alleged that the petitioner appeared in the B.A. (Pass) III in April-May, 2006. The examination was held on 5.4.2006. He was shocked when he saw the question paper. Instead of a maximum of 100 marks, the written examination was for a maximum of 75 marks. The University had made provision for 25 maximum marks for internal assessment. The University declared that the petitioner obtained 25 marks out of 100 in the paper. He accordingly represented alleging that his internal assessment ought to be made and added to the result. The university by the impugned letter informed him that Part III English are out of 100 and not 75 and that up-gradation has been done in his case.

5. Mr. Ankur Jain reiterated the averments in the writ petition. He further submitted that the evaluation policy in the petitioner's case was utterly arbitrary. He, like other students who were assessed, ought to have been also given the opportunity of securing marks in internal assessment. Without doing that, his performance was marked out of 75 and thereafter shown to have been out of a maximum of 100 marks. This has caused him immense prejudice since he stands to forfeit the opportunity of holding the degree. Counsel contends that in the overall circumstances of the case the petitioner's marks should be reckoned as 25 out of 75 and not 25 out of 100.

6. The university opposes the petition. It is averred and urged on its behalf that the petitioner's contentions are untenable in law. It is submitted that according to University Ordinances and Rules, with effect from Academic Year 2003-2004, marks of each student admitted to an undergraduate course are computed at the end of each Academic Year on the basis of the marks secured in the University Examinations and Internal Assessment. It is urged that while the written examination is conducted by the University, internal assessment is done by each College during the course of studies in the relevant Academic Year. 75% marks are assigned to the written examination conducted by the University and 25% marks are allotted to the internal assessment done by each College during the relevant Academic Year. The 25% marks assigned for Internal Assessment would consist of the following:

   a) Mid term examination - maximum marks        - 10
 b) Assignment, Tutorials etc. - maximum marks  - 10
 c) Attendance - maximum marks                  - 05
                                                ------

                                                ------
 

7. It was argued that the petitioner is a candidate admitted in the academic year 1998-1999 and was appearing in the examination in question as an ex-student. Learned Counsel relied on para 3 of the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner obtained 19 marks out of a total of 75 possible marks in the written examination conducted by the University. Since in his case the internal assessment system was not in vogue when he obtained admission, as the assessment was proportionately on the basis of his performance in the written examination. He thus obtained a total of 25 marks out of 100.

8. From the above discussion it is evident that the petitioner was unable to complete his course within the time span prescribed. In the normal circumstances he should have completed all his papers in the B.A. (Pass) course within Academic Year 2003-2004. Due to personal circumstances he was unable to do so. As a special case, despite the rigors of Ordinance VIII(2), the University permitted him one chance. He could not avail of it in November, 2005. Ultimately he appeared in the written examination held on 5.4.2006. In the result declared by the University, he obtained 25 out of 100 marks. It is undisputed that the evaluation pattern had changed in 2003-2004. In those courses, under the old pattern, evaluation was exclusively on the basis of performance in the written examination. The new pattern however divided assessment by marks in the written examination, out of a total 75 marks obtained by the candidate in the University examination and the balance marks out of 25 on the basis of internal assessment by the college or the institution. The petitioner was a student enrolled on the old pattern. Thus when he appeared in the examination the total marks indicated were 75.

9. The above discussion would show that the petitioner was given a chance to appear in the examination as a special case. However, this opportunity had to be seen within the parameters of his enrolled as a student of the old pattern. In the old pattern there was no internal assessment by the institution at least as necessary for evaluating the student. The performance was judged exclusively on his assessment in the written examination held by the University. If one keeps in mind this perspective there is no question of his being aggrieved by the University's refusal to award marks for internal assessment. In such circumstances whether the maximum marks are 75 or 50 or 100 become irrelevant because they would all be reflected in terms of percentage; here the petitioner obtained 19 out of 75 marks and was thus awarded 25 out of 100 marks. A student can be awarded internal assessment marks by a college or institution provided he attends his classes on a consistent basis and the institution is afforded an opportunity to assess him over a time period. That was not possible because here the petitioner belonged to the old pattern where such assessments were not done. Besides he could not avail the opportunity of clearing all his papers within this period time frame. For these reasons too the argument put forward on his behalf is unfeasible and impracticable.

10. In view of the above findings, this petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.