Delhi High Court
Apaar Sharma vs University Of Delhi & Anr. on 26 February, 2016
Author: Manmohan
22
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10316/2015
APAAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Manish Singhvi, Advocate with
Mr. Pasanjit Pritam, advocate.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate
with Mr. Simran Jeet, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 26th February, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondent to constitute a new panel of three expert members in the field of
Sociology and re-evaluate the answer-sheets on the principle of moderation.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the examiner variability due
to liberal/strict valuation has been described as "hawk-dove" effect, i.e. some
students get extraordinary marks while others get less marks. According to
him, the „hawk‟ effect is manifest in the present case as 51 students out of 60
students have failed in the examination.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner emphasises that more than 80%
students have failed in the "paper of Sociology of Contemporary India". He
contends that a strict examiner without considering the overall standards to
be met has failed students in bulk and thereby jeopardised the carrier of all
the students including the petitioner herein. He submits that this "hawk-
dove" effect has been recognised by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh &
Anr. vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr., (2007) 3 SCC
720 wherein it has been held as under:-
"23. When a large number of candidates appear for an
examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency
in valuation of the answer-scripts. Where the number of
candidates taking the examination are limited and only one
examiner (preferably the paper-setter himself) evaluates the
answer-scripts, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity
in the valuation. But where a large number of candidates take
the examination, it will not be possible to get all the answer-
scripts evaluated by the same examiner. It, therefore, becomes
necessary to distribute the answer-scripts among several
examiners for valuation with the paper-setter (or other senior
person) acting as the Head Examiner. When more than one
examiners evaluate the answer-scripts relating to a subject, the
subjectivity of the respective examiner will creep into the marks
awarded by him to the answer-scripts allotted to him for
valuation. Each examiner will apply his own yardstick to assess
the answer-scripts. Inevitably therefore, even when experienced
examiners receive equal batches of answer-scripts, there is
difference in average marks and the range of marks awarded,
thereby affecting the merit of individual candidates. This apart,
there is "hawk-dove" effect. Some examiners are liberal in
valuation and tend to award more marks. Some examiners are
strict and tend to give less marks. Some may be moderate and
balanced in awarding marks. Even among those who are liberal
or those who are strict, there may be variance in the degree of
strictness or liberality. This means that if the same answer-
script is given to different examiners, there is all likelihood of
different marks being assigned. If a very well-written answer-
script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre answer-script
goes to a liberal examiner, the mediocre answer-script may be
awarded more marks than the excellent answer-script. In other
words, there is "reduced valuation" by a strict examiner and
"enhanced valuation" by a liberal examiner. This is known as
"examiner variability" or "hawk-dove effect". Therefore, there
is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se the
examiners so that the effect of "examiner subjectivity" or
"examiner variability" is minimised. The procedure adopted to
reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is known as
moderation..........."
(emphasis supplied)
4. On the other hand, Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 states that since many students complained of low scoring
in "Sociology Contemporary India", Delhi University on its own decided to
allow revaluation of the answer scripts in the said subject. He states that the
revaluation of answer script was carried out as per the rules/regulations of
the Delhi University.
5. Mr. Rupal further states that revaluation was done by an examiner,
other than the original examiner who had earlier examined the answer script,
after blocking the marks assigned by the original examiner. He also states
that the examiner who revaluated the answer script, did not write marks on
the original answer script in accordance with the University guidelines, but
awarded marks separately on an "award sheet".
6. This Court in Mitali Bhattacharya Vs. University of Delhi and Anr.,
W.P.(C) 329/2016 decided on 12th February, 2016 had examined the said
petitioner‟s answer script as well as her revaluated award sheet which
showed that the answer sheet had been duly evaluated and revaluated by the
original examiner as well as a revaluator.
7. This Court is also of the opinion that the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Sanjay Singh & Anr. (supra) offers no assistance to the petitioner
as the same pertains to an examination where papers of different students
were checked by different examiners. In the present case, the papers have
been checked by one examiner and revaluated by a different examiner.
Consequently, the „hawk-dove‟ effect is not attracted to the present case.
8. It is also well settled law that Courts cannot take upon itself the task of
assessing the answer script. It has been repeatedly held that in academic
issues and matters pertaining to examination, decision should be left to the
wisdom of academic bodies and the courts should not interfere with them. In
the opinion of this Court, there is no scope of judicial review in evaluation of
answer sheets which has been done by an expert in the field.
9. This Court is further of the opinion that it cannot order a second
revaluation of the petitioner‟s paper as firstly there is no provision of seeking
further revaluation of answer scripts and secondly, if this process is adopted,
then there shall be no finality to the result. Moreover, as there is no
provision of seeking second revaluation of the answer sheets, the same
cannot be allowed. The Supreme Court in H.P. Public Service Commission
vs. Mukesh Thakur & Another, (2010) 6 SCC 759, after referring to earlier
decisions has held as under:-
"27. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in
absence of any provisions under the Statute or Statutory
Rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct
revaluation."
10. Consequently, present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is
dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2016
js
