Mohd.Amir & Ors. vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3193 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      Writ Petition (Civil) No.10694/2009

%                        Date of Decision: 17.08.2009

Mohd.Amir & Ors.                                         .... Petitioner
                         Through Mr.Baban K. Sharma, Advocate.

                                   Versus

Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors.                          .... Respondents
                      Through Mr.M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in              NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. The petitioners, three students of Class 9th who have failed in the

9th Class examination seek direction to the respondents to examine the

case of the petitioners and get their copies evaluated properly and to

declare them promoted to the upper class.

2. The petitioners have produced the statement of marks for three

cycles and second term/Half yearly exam, III term/Annual exam. All the

marks are in the same statement of marks. The learned counsel for the

petitioner contends that the statement of marks giving the marks of all

three cycles I, II and III and second term /half yearly and III

term/annual exam were given only after the end of the annual exam. A

copy of the answer book of petitioner No.1 for SST has also been

produced. Similarly, the answer book of second unit test of petitioner

No.2 is produced to show that the marks awarded are not appropriate.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show as to how

the original answer books were given to the petitioners. On the

representation made by the father of the petitioner No.1, it was held

that the answer books which have been produced by the petitioners are

not the answer books as they do not bear any initials or signatures of

the concerned teachers. The petitioners have not produced the answer

books which were used by them in the examination.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents who appears on advance

notice has also pointed out the manipulations in the marks sheet of

petitioner No.3 in case of mathematics. It is pointed out that the

petitioner No.3 has obtained 29 marks out of 90 for three cycles-I, II

and III and total of the best of two tests out of 15 will show that the

petitioner No.3 was entitled for 5 marks, however, 15 marks are shown

under said column which could be possible only if the said petitioner

had obtained 60 marks out of 60 marks,

5. The learned counsel has contended that there is extrapolation in

front of 5 as numeral 1 has been added which is also in different ink.

The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to explain as to how

the petitioner no.3 has been awarded 15 marks out of 15 marks, since

he obtained 21 marks, best to two, out of 60 marks. It is apparent in

the circumstances that it is on account of extrapolation done in the

statement of marks.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out the

cuttings carried out on the statement of marks of petitioner no.1 in

pencil which the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain.

The answer books produced by the petitioner are in handwriting in two

different inks which has not been explained by the counsel for the

petitioners.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents have also produced the

copy of the letter dated 29th April, 2009 by Social Science Teachers to

the Principal regarding the petitioner No.1 contending that the answer

sheet has been fabricated as 4 marks have been manipulated as 14. It

has been stated by the social science teachers that the handwriting and

the marking on the answer sheet does not match the handwriting of any

social science teacher. It is also stated that the answer sheet does not

bear any signature/initial of any social science teacher. It is also

contended that the alleged discrepancy was pointed out after the

annual examination whereas the test, in which the discrepancy has

been alleged, was taken, evaluated and communicated during the

month of July, 2008 and the discrepancy was not pointed out during

the two Parent Teacher meetings organized by the school. It has also

been disclosed that the petitioner No.1 did not attend any question from

Geography area but he attempted few questions in the area of History,

Civics and Economics.

8. Copies of the letters written to Deputy Registrar (HRD) Schools

and to the Hony. Director also reveal that the father of the petitioner

No.1 had approached the principal twice with the request to increase

the marks in one of the three subjects in which his son had failed so

that he could be given compartment and when the principal denied the

same the answer sheet was produced which is apparently fabricated

one. The father of the petitioner no.1 had approached the principal with

the said request before producing the first cycle test Social Science

answer sheet and alleging discrepancy.

9. The principal has placed reliance on the explanations given by the

Social Science Teachers. Similarly the explanations have been given

regarding petitioner No.2 who was absent in second cycle test of English

and the marks given to Shoeb Ahmad, petitioner No.3 in different

exams of Mathematics.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to give any

plausible answers. Considering the facts and circumstances there is no

ground to direct the respondent to re-evaluate the answer books. In any

case the petitioner has failed to show any rule which would entitle

petitioners for re-evaluation of his answer books. The answer books

were returned to the petitioners as has been alleged by them and in the

circumstances, the possibility of extrapolation cannot be ruled out and

the petitioners in the circumstances cannot claim revaluation of their

answer books. There are no grounds for directing re-evaluation when

apparently there are extrapolations in the statement of marks produced

by the petitioners and even in the answer books.

11. The answer books which have been produced on behalf of the

petitioners in respect of which revaluation is sought are not signed or

initialed by any of the teachers. The learned counsel for the petitioners

alleged that the other answer books had also not been initialed by the

class/subject teachers. The learned counsel for the petitioners was

directed to produce other copies of other subjects which would have

shown whether the answer books were signed by the class teachers or

subject teachers. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has

not produced any other answer books of any other subject to buttress

his point that the answer books were not initialed or signed by the class

teacher or subject teacher. The answer books of petitioner No.1 and

petitioner No.2, therefore, cannot be relied on and the petitioners are

not entitled for any relief in the facts and circumstances.

12. The petitioners are not entitled for the relief claimed and the writ

petition is an abuse of process of law. The writ petition is, therefore,

dismissed. Parties are however, left to bear their own costs.

August 17, 2009                                    ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'