Delhi High Court
Indrajit Ghosh vs The Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru ... on 12 March, 2015
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12.03.2015
+ W.P.(C) 881/2015 & CM 1538-1539/2015, 4342/2015
INDRAJIT GHOSH ..... Petitioner
versus
THE REGISTRAR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
UNIVERSITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Chetna Gera.
For the Respondents : Mr Mohinder Jit Singh Rupal
for JNU/R-1 to R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as
under:-
"i) Respondent no.1 and 2 to get the answer sheet of the
M.A. (Philosophy) Entrance Exam of the Petitioner re-
evaluated by an independent and neutral person outside the
influence of Respondent no.1, 2 & 3 and place the Petitioner
at appropriate position in the merit list of the entrance
examination of the M.A. (Philosophy)."
2. The petitioner appeared for the entrance examination for seeking
admission to Jawaharlal Nehru University (hereafter 'JNU') for the
postgraduate degree course of M.A (Philosophy). The petitioner was
awarded 17 marks out of 100, which was much lower than the petitioner's
expectation. The petitioner applied for a copy of the answer sheets under
the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was provided to the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, his answers have not been evaluated fairly.
3. It is the petitioner's case that the respondent-university had not
removed the identity slip on the answer sheets and thus the identity of the
petitioner was known to the examiner. It is urged that this was in violation
of Rule 5.1 of the Admission Policy. It is further asserted that the examiner
in question (respondent No.3) bore a grudge against the petitioner on
account of certain arguments that had taken place during the class. The
petitioner further alleges that respondent No.3 also knew the handwriting of
the petitioner and, being vindictive had deliberately awarded less mark to
the petitioner. He, accordingly, prays that the answer sheets of the entrance
examination of M.A. (Philosophy) be re-evaluated.
4. The learned counsel for JNU submits that that there is no rule for re-
evaluation of answer sheets. He further disputes that the contention that the
petitioner has been unfairly treated.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
6. It is relevant to refer to Rule 5.1 of the Admission Policy, which
reads as under:
"5 Selection of Candidates
5.1 On receipt of the Answer Scripts from the Examination
Centres these are shuffled and secret code numbers are given to
each one of them by the computer Agency after removing the
details of the candidate i.e. name, registration number, centre of
examination etc. These code numbers are not even known to the
officers/staff members who are involved in the Admission
process. Thereafter the answer scripts are forwarded to the
centres/schools concerned for evaluation. Based on the
performance of the candidates in the written examination, they
are invited to appear for the viva - voce (wherever prescribed).
After the viva voce is held, deprivation points wherever
applicable, are added to the total score of the candidate and
coded merit lists drawn. Thereafter the coded merit lists are
forwarded to the Centres/schools concerned."
7. Although the petitioner has canvassed that the above rule was
violated and the portion of the top sheet bearing the name of the petitioner
had not been removed, the respondent-university has disputed the same and
has sworn an affidavit, inter alia, stating as under:-
"That the answer-scripts for the Entrance Test for
admission to M.A. (Philosophy) had been coded and the
identity of the candidates was concealed, by detaching the
identity-sheet/part of the title page of the answer script,
when received in the office of the Centre for Philosophy.
The answer-scripts were evaluated by a Board of
Examiners, consisting of faculty of the Centre, sitting
together in the Conference Room of the Centre for
Philosophy. The answer-scripts were distributed randomly
amongst individual examiners. The identity of none of the
candidates and the answer-scripts was known to any of the
examiners evaluating the answer-scripts. The answer-
scripts are evaluated strictly as per Rule 5 (5.1) of the
Admission Policy of the University which has already been
reproduced in the present Writ Petition at paragraph 5(bb)
of page 18. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner
has annexed the photocopy of the title page of the answer
book (Annexure-VI - page 45) wherein his identity-sheet
had been re-attached and stapled for the purposes of
finalization of the results."
8. The original answer sheets of the petitioner as well as another
candidate (one Akansha Priya) have been produced in Court and it clearly
indicates that the portion of the answer sheet which reflects the identity of
the petitioner had been detached and had been re-attached by staples. The
staple marks are also visible on the photocopy of the answer sheet that was
supplied to the petitioner pursuant to his application under the Right to
Information Act, 2005. Since the line of perforation, which is meant for
tearing the portion of the top cover of the answer sheets bearing the name
and details of the candidates ( i.e the petitioner and Akansha Priya) is
visible in the photocopies of the answer sheets supplied to the said
candidates, the petitioner has, apparently, assumed that the said portion of
the top cover had not been detached. The said photocopies do not indicate
that the identity sheets had been removed or the identity codes assigned.
However, on examining the original answer sheets it is apparent that the
same had been torn and reattached. The identity codes awarded have been
concealed by a slip and thus not visible on the photocopies of the answer
sheets; the same is also evident on examining the original answer sheets.
9. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner has filed the
present petition on an erroneous premise that Rule 5.1 of the Admission
Policy had not been followed by the respondent-university.
10. There is also no material to indicate that while evaluating the answer
sheets of various candidates, respondent no. 3 was aware of that the
particular answer sheet being evaluated was that of the petitioner. More
importantly, there is no material to conclude that respondent no. 3 was
biased against the petitioner; the contention that respondent no. 3 is
inimical to the petitioner is, therefore, not sustainable.
11. It is well established that the petitioner does not have any inherent
fundamental right for revaluation of his answer sheets. The Supreme Court
in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman Bihar Public Service
Commission, Patna & Ors.: 2004 (6) SCC 714 relying on the earlier
decision in Maharashtra Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth & Ors.: 1984 (4)
SCC 27 clearly held that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation
of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has
any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This decision has
also been followed by the Supreme Court in Board of Secondary
Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr.: (2004) 13 SCC 383.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the petition and pending applications are
dismissed. No order as to costs.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
MARCH 12, 2015
pkv/RK
