Delhi High Court
Agastya Shelat vs University Of Delhi & Anr on 3 December, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 3rd December, 2014.
+ LPA No.768/2014
AGASTYA SHELAT ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Mithu Jain,
Mr. Deepak Pathak and Ms. Astha
Sharma, Advs.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal with Ms.
Yamni Phazang, Advs. for R-1/DU.
AND
+ W.P.(C) No.8216/2014
AGASTYA SHELAT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Mithu Jain,
Mr. Deepak Pathak and Ms. Astha
Sharma, Advs.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal with Ms.
Yamni Phazang, Advs. for R-1/DU.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The intra court appeal, being LPA No.768/2014 was preferred
impugning the order dated 25th November, 2014 of the learned Single Judge
of this Court in W.P.(C) No.8216/2014 filed by the appellant, issuing the
notice thereof to the respondents University of Delhi and Sri Venkateswara
College for 19th February, 2015. It was the contention of the appellant / writ
petitioner that considering the nature of the relief claimed in the writ petition,
the same would become infructuous on 15th December, 2014 and the learned
Single Judge, without considering the said aspect on 25th November, 2014,
gave long date of 19th February, 2015.
2. W.P.(C) No.8216/2014 (supra) was filed on 22nd / 23rd November,
2014, averring:
(i) that the appellant / writ petitioner had taken admission in the
year 2011, in the three years B.A. Political Science (Hons.)
Programme of the respondent No.2 Sri Venkateswara College,
affiliated to the respondent No.1 University of Delhi;
(ii) that though the respondent No.1 University, in the year 2011
required a student to secure 40% aggregate marks in internal and
external assessments to pass a subject and also permitted re-evaluation
of the answer sheets to a question paper in an examination but vide
Notification dated 18th October, 2013, did away with the re-evaluation
facility and also changed the rule regarding pass marks thereby
requiring a student to secure 40% each in internal and external
assessments;
(iii) that the appellant / writ petitioner took his final Sixth Semester
examination in May, 2014 and in anticipation of completing the said
programme and so becoming a graduate, also took Law School
Admission Test (LSAT) for admission to the three years LL.B.
programme and to which, he was entitled to only upon completing his
graduation;
(iv) that though the appellant / writ petitioner cleared the LSAT and
got provisional admission to O.P. Jindal Global University in the three
years LL.B. programme, subject to completing his graduation but in
the result declared by the respondent No.1 University of the final
semester of B.A. Political Science (Hons.) Examination, had failed in
the subject of Indian Political Thought-II, having secured 28 out of 75
marks in external assessment and 12 out of 25 marks in internal
assessment; though the appellant / writ petitioner had an aggregate
(28+12) of 40 marks but since he had 28 instead of 30 marks (to make
40%) in external assessment, he was declared, „failed‟ entitled to
Essential Repeat (ER), in the said subject;
(v) that the appellant / writ petitioner applied for the facility of
"recheck", still available, but which is mere re-totalling of the marks
and in which no error was found;
(vi) that owing to the respondent No.1 University having done away
with the facility of re-evaluation, the appellant / writ petitioner could
not have applied therefor; similarly, though as per the rules in force at
the time of admission of the appellant / writ petitioner to the B.A.
Political Science (Hons.) course, the appellant / writ petitioner having
secured aggregate of 40% in the said subject would have passed the
said subject but owing to the changed rule requiring 40% marks in
internal as well as external assessments, was declared „fail‟ in the said
subject;
(vii) that the respondent No.1 University however vide Notification
dated 20th October, 2014 inter alia re-introduced the facility earlier in
vogue of re-evaluation;
(viii) that since the time for the appellant / writ petitioner to convert
his provisional admission to regular in O.P. Jindal Global University is
till 15th December, 2014, the appellant / writ petitioner filed the writ
petition,
(a) impugning the Notification dated 18th October, 2013 vide
which the re-evaluation facility was scrapped;
(b) seeking a direction to the respondents to re-evaluate the
answer sheet of the appellant / writ petitioner of the subject in
which the appellant / writ petitioner had failed;
(c) seeking a direction to the respondent No.1 University to
hold a supplementary examination for the subject in which the
appellant / writ petitioner had failed;
(d) seeking a direction to the respondents to award two grace
marks to the appellant / writ petitioner in the subject in which he
had failed; and,
(e) seeking a direction to the respondents to award the
graduation degree to the appellant / writ petitioner, since he had
already secured aggregate of 40% marks in the internal and
external assessment in the said subject.
3. The writ petition was not accompanied with any application for
interim relief as indeed it could not have been. As aforesaid, the writ
petition came up before the learned Single Judge first only on 25 th
November, 2014 and the grievance of the appellant / writ petitioner in the
appeal was / is that the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ
petition immediately, instead of giving an opportunity to the respondents to
file a counter affidavit and posting the petition to 19th February, 2015 for
hearing.
4. The appeal came up before us first yesterday i.e. on 2nd December,
2014. The main argument of the counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner
was, of the respondent No.1 University being not entitled to change the rules
applicable on the date when the appellant / writ petitioner had taken
admission.
5. However, we drew the attention of the counsel for the appellant / writ
petitioner to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of H.P. Vs.
Himanchal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh (2011) 6
SCC 597 laying down that there is no embargo on the University changing
the academic / examination / re-evaluation rules mid-term. The counsel for
the respondent No.1 University appearing on advance notice also drew
attention to our recent judgment dated 27 th November, 2014 in LPA
No.956/2013 titled Amit Kumar Vs. Delhi University and other connected
petitions, where the same view has been followed.
6. Faced therewith, the counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner
contended that there was no reason to deprive the appellant / writ petitioner
from the facility of re-evaluation, since the respondent No.1 University itself
had re-introduced the same. It was contended that only those who had taken
the examination between 18th October, 2013 and 20th October, 2014 were
being deprived of the said facility.
7. The counsel for the respondent No.1 University however drew our
attention to the Notification dated 20th October, 2014 vide which the said
facility of re-evaluation was re-introduced, taking cognizance of a large
number of representations received from the students as well as the Delhi
University Students‟ Union (DUSU) and the relevant para whereof is as
under:
"2. The revaluation of answer sheets, which had become
infructuous because of introduction of checking of answer
sheets by multiple examiners, will also be reverted back and the
answer sheets will be examined by single examiner. The
procedure and guidelines of revaluation will be laid down by
the University".
and contended that it is not as if, the facility of re-evaluation was
taken away and was reintroduced as per the whim and fancy of the
University. It is informed that the facility of re-evaluation was done away
vide Notification dated 18th October, 2013, on introduction of the system of
checking of answer sheets by multiple examiners. It is informed that prior to
18th October, 2013, the answer sheets used to be examined / checked by a
single examiner and in which situation a need for having the facility of re-
evaluation, to avoid human error, was felt necessary; however, in the year
2013, the University introduced the practice of examination / checking of
answer sheets by multiple examiners and in the face whereof, the facility of
re-evaluation was found to have become infructuous and was thus done
away with; however, upon the Four Years Undergraduate Programme
(FYUP) being scrapped in June / July, 2014, the practice earlier introduced
of checking of answer sheets by multiple examiners, was reverted and the
answer sheets, in future, ordered to be examined by single examiner only
and in which situation, again need for the facility of re-evaluation was felt
and hence the said facility was reintroduced.
8. It thus appeared yesterday that, if the answer sheet of the appellant /
writ petitioner of the examination in the subject in which he had failed had
been checked by multiple examiners, the appellant / writ petitioner did not
have a case for being still entitled to re-evaluation.
9. The counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner however yesterday
controverted that the said answer sheet was examined / evaluated / checked
by multiple examiners.
10. We thus enquired from the counsel for the respondent No.1
University, whether the subject answer sheet was checked by multiple
examiners.
11. The counsel for the respondent No.1 University though stated that as
per the prevalent rules it should have been but he did not have instructions
particularly with respect to the subject answer sheet.
12. We accordingly adjourned the matter to today and for the sake of
expeditious disposal of the writ petition itself, with consent, also directed the
writ petition to be listed before this Court today along with the appeal. By
way of abundant caution, the counsel for the respondent No.1 University was
also directed to obtain instructions, whether the subject answer sheet was
available or had been destroyed.
13. The counsel for the respondent No.1 University today, on instructions,
states that the subject answer sheet was examined / checked / evaluated by a
Board comprising of three examiners. He also informs that the subject
answer sheet is still available.
14. The said answer sheet having been examined / checked by three
examiners, we do not find any error in the Notification dated 18 th October,
2013, on introduction of the said system of checking, doing away with the
facility of re-evaluation.
15. The counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner of course contends that
it be further found out whether each member of the said Board of Examiners
had examined answers to different questions or the three together had
examined the answers to all the questions and in which case, he would be
satisfied. It is also contended that we call for the answer sheet to satisfy
ourselves, whether it has been correctly evaluated or not.
16. We are not impressed. Both the arguments are off the cuff, desperate
and misconceived and without any basis or pleading and cannot be
entertained.
17. The counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner however hands over a
purported download of an article which had appeared on the e-newspaper
„Mail Today‟ on 26th November, 2012, reporting that it had been learnt that
in some cases the Board of Examiners had divided the answers of different
questions to be checked amongst themselves and thus answers to all the
questions had not been examined by all the three examiners.
18. We cannot make the same as the basis of our order, without any plea
ever in this regard, to commence a roving and fishing enquiry. The appellant
/ writ petitioner does not dispute that the rule required the Board of
Examiners comprising of three teachers to examine the entire answer sheet.
We have no reason to assume that the said rule was not followed. If the said
rule was followed, the appellant / writ petitioner also agrees that there is no
need for re-evaluation.
19. We therefore do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is
dismissed; axiomatically the appeal is also dismissed.
20. The counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner at this stage states that
the writ petition ought not to be disposed of, without a counter affidavit and
on the oral statement of the counsel for the respondent No.1 University.
21. The appellant / writ petitioner / his counsel cannot be allowed to
approbate and reprobate. The appellant / writ petitioner filed the appeal
stating that the writ petition, owing to the urgency, should have been decided
immediately, without any counter affidavit. Now when we have done so, the
appellant / writ petitioner cannot be allowed to say that counter affidavit
should have been allowed to be filed.
22. The writ petition and the appeal are accordingly dismissed. The
appellant / writ petitioner being a student, we refrain from imposing any
costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 03, 2014
bs..
