Gujarat High Court
Chaitanya Vyas vs Pandit Deendayala Energy University on 30 January, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/446/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
446 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 196 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 196 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14100 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 196 of 2025
=============================================
CHAITANYA VYAS
Versus
PANDIT DEENDAYALA ENERGY UNIVERSITY
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP H MUNJYASARA(10781) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 30/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This appeal has been filed with the delay of 41 days. The
delay has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
Delay condonation application is hereby allowed. Delay
of 41 days is hereby condoned. Office is directed to allot
regular number to the appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
record.
3. This is a wholly misconceived appeal filed by an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/446/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
Examiner who had examined certain answer-sheets of
the examination conducted by the University as Course
Coordinator of Business Research Methods (BRM) at
Pandit Deendayal Energy University at Gandhinagar.
The Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by
appending the sheet of evaluation of the marks of certain
students at page '10' of the paper-book of the original
Writ petition stating that as per the evaluation made by
the appellant-original petitioner of the answer-sheet of
end-semester examination conducted on May 2023, '98'
students failed the subject, whereas 'five (5)' students
remained absent. It is stated that the students whose
answer-sheet was evaluated by the appellant-original
petitioner were due to pass the graduation and
participate in the upcoming convocation as they were
students of 2020-2024 batch. In spite of the marks
allocated by the petitioner as an evaluator, the
respondent University had illegally assigned marks to 30
students who had actually failed as per the assessment
made by the petitioner. The contention is that the
University has manipulated the results to preserve its
reputation.
4. Taking note of these contentions made in the Writ
petition, we have raised a pointed query to the learned
counsel for the original petitioner as to how and in what
manner he could have access to the evaluation sheet
appended at page '10' of the paper-book as Annexure 'A',
as being examiner, he cannot have the proper custody of
the evaluation sheet. No answer is forthcoming. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/446/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant at the bar that the evaluation sheet was with
the original petitioner as it was sent through email to the
University as per the procedure prescribed by the
University is neither here nor there. We may record
that we cannot lay credence to the documents appended
at Annexure 'A' to the Writ petition as it cannot be said
to have been obtained from a proper source. In our
considered opinion, the original petitioner being the
examiner, could not have access to the evaluation sheet
after the evaluation is completed by him, inasmuch as,
evaluation sheet is a confidential document to be kept in
the custody of the Examination Committee or any other
competent authority of the University.
5. A further perusal of the record indicates that the
petitioner had indulged in some communication with the
Registrar of the University by raising a grievance by
letter dated 05.02.2024. The said document was sought
to be placed before us to answer the query of the Court
that the petitioner had approached the University, but
his grievances were not met. On the said document
being placed before us, we have raised a further query
as to when the petitioner had submitted the evaluation
sheet and the date when the results were declared. As
per the statement made by the learned counsel for the
appellant in answer to the said query, the evaluation
sheet was submitted by the petitioner in the month of
May 2023 and the result was declared in June 2023. Be
that as it may, the petitioner cannot be said to have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/446/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
raised grievances before the competent authority, i.e.
the executive council of the University which is the apex
body.
6. We may further record that as is evident from the page
'18' of the paper-book, there were some complaints
against the appellant herein and an explanation had
been called from him in the month of July 2023 itself, i.e.
soon after the declaration of the result. The letter dated
05.07.2023 of the Director, School of Liberal Students
(SLS) at page '18' of the paper-book indicates that with
reference to the paper titled "Business Research
Method" taught and examined by the petitioner as a
course coordinator of the students of 6th Semester for
January to June 2023, there were mass representations
by the students on the grievances regarding question
paper and evaluation against the petitioner. The letter
further indicates that the petitioner had remained non-
cooperative and unapproachable at various levels of the
officials who were trying to contact him and solve
students' concerns. Explanation was sought from the
petitioner on various points, including that he did not
keep the Controller of Examination office informed of the
two sets of question papers submitted by him in light of
not keeping the HOD/Dean/Director informed. It was
further asked as to why the question paper mapping
with course objective justification and balanced
coverage of the syllabus in the end-semester question
paper was not adhered to as per the norms? There are
allegations of disparity in the results of internal/mid-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/446/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
semester and end-semester examination where some
students scored full in the internal and mid-semester but
scored zero in the end-semester paper. It was asked
from the petitioner whether the attendance or lack of it
for the course was duly marked in the TCS and notified
to school for any academic enrichment? Was the answer
key vetted by the HOD? If not, did the petitioner keep
HOD informed? Why marks for correct steps to arrive at
an answer were not considered. There are allegation of
insubordination of the School Director by refusing to
reply despite an email sent from the Director, School of
Liberal Studies on June 14, 2023.
7. We may further note that a cautionary letter dated
07.08.2023 had been issued to the petitioner stating that
it was in a specific reference to the concern raised by
the students for the paper titled "Business Research
Method" taught and examined as a Course Coordinator
to 6th Semester students for January to June 2023 and
further an email by the Director, SLS dated 05.07.2023
and the reply of the petitioner dated 07.07.2023. The
said letter records that :-
1) Not keeping the Director/Dean/HOD nor the COE
informed for the two sets of question papers with
varying levels of difficulties that you submitted to
COE office for the exam scheduled on the same
date and time.
2) The question paper mapping with CO justification
and balanced coverage of the syllabus in the end-
semester question paper was not adhered to as per
the followed norms.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/446/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
3) Erratic marking criterion used across mid/internal
and end Semester for students.
4) Evaluation method has not been implemented as
per normal practice by you.
5) Insubordination shown by you to the school
director by refusing to reply despite an email sent
by the Director on June 14, 2023 to you soliciting
an immediate reply in order to resolve the concerns
of the students.
6) Lack of proactive review as a course coordinator
about the poor academic performance by the
majority of the BRM students.
8. It was, thus, intimated to the petitioner that the
petitioner has failed to observe the University's
academic, administrative and behavioral norms and has
been warned to refrain from any such activity that is
deterrent to the progress of the stakeholders and
fulfillment of the University's vision. The registrar of the
University has warned the petitioner to take note of the
direction issued by the Director General to desist from
doing the same in future.
9. We may further record that it seems that the petitioner
had kept silence for some time and again wrote a letter
to the Under Secretary to the University Grants
Commission. With reference to the letter received from
the Under Secretary, University Grants Commission
dated 22.03.2024, the Registrar of the University
responded with respect to the issues raised before the
University Grants Commission. It is categorically stated
therein that there was no question of manipulation of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/446/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
result, rather in order to ensure that the students are
not harmed unnecessarily, as system of moderation by
the Moderation Committee headed by the Director
General of the University was followed, which was
empowered to moderate the marks. The same was done
and after due diligence, 30 students had passed bringing
the failure to 68 (30.49%). The process of moderation is
in order and completely legal and ethical. With regard
to the conducting of examination on two consecutive
days for the same paper and syllabus, it was
categorically replied that the procedure was in order
and students cannot make a simple judgment that the
question paper which came on the first day would not be
repeated on the second day. Moreover, in all online
competitive examination in the country, exams for the
course and syllabus are conducted on different days and
different shifts and if required, process of normalisation
is followed.
10. Taking note of the above, we may record that an
intimation was sent by the Under Secretary to the
Principal Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical
Education to deal with the complaint made by the
petitioner at its own end.
11. Be that as it may, it is more than evident that the
petitioner who was merely the Course Coordinator and
Examiner who had evaluated the answer-sheets of
certain students for the paper "Business Research
Method" of 6th Semester students, cannot any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/446/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
grievances for the methodology adopted by the
University for moderation of the marks allocated by the
petitioner as an Examiner.
12. The content of the letter dated 05.07.2023 issued by the
Director (SLS) clearly shows that the petitioner did not
adopt proper methodology for the purpose of setting of
papers. The papers set-up by the petitioner were not
moderated as they were not intimated to the concerned
officer. The answer key was not vetted by the Head of
the Department as there is no response to this aspect in
the present petition. The content of the letter dated
07.08.2023 of the Registrar, University, as extracted
hereianbove, clearly indicates that the petitioner had
adopted erratic marking criteria across mid/internal and
end-semester for students. The evaluation method has
not been implemented as per normal practice by the
petitioner. There is an incident of insubordination of the
School Director and the lack of proactive review as a
Course Coordinator about the poor academic
performance by majority of the University students. The
petitioner has been found guilty of not keeping the
Director/Dean/HOD or the Controller of Examination
informed for the two sets of question papers with
varying level of difficulties, which was submitted in the
office of the Controller of Examination for the
examination scheduled on the same date and time.
13. Coming to the response submitted by the petitioner with
the letter dated 07.07.2023, it may be recorded that a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/446/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
statement has been made to the effect that the petitioner
had not submitted two sets of question papers to the
exam office but had submitted two question papers and
had clarified to the Controller of Examination about two
question papers. With regard to the question about
paper mapping with course objective justification and
balance coverage of the syllabus in the end-semester
question paper and not adhering to the norms, the
answer is that the allegations are false and the question
papers were required to be reviewed after the exam by
the Committee as per the circular of the University and
the petitioner had not received any communication from
such a Committee. About disparity in the result of
internal/mid-semester and end-semester, it is stated that
the students have scored according to their performance
in the components. About the attendance or lack of it,
not being duly marked by the petitioner, it is answered
that the petitioner had the attendance record which
could not be uploaded on TCSion because mapping was
not done on TCSion and he sought help from the
administration vide email dated 20.02.2023 but no
solution was given. The answer to the question that the
answer key was not vetted by the HOD is in 'Yes' and the
contention is that was so because there is no such rule
communicated to the petitioner ever. The petitioner had
admitted that he did not keep the Head of the
Department informed and explains that the same was
because there was no such University rule
communicated to him. About insubordination, the
allegations have been termed as baseless.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/446/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
14. On the aspect of the locus of the petitioner to challenge
the action of the University, the learned counsel for
petitioner has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court
in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India [1981 (Supp) SCC
87], Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S. Muddappa &
Ors.[(1991) 4 SCC 54] and Kiran Devi vs. Bihar
State Sunni Wakf Board [(2021) 15 SCC 15].
15. For these acts of the petitioner, as reflected from the
record, he cannot seek indulgence of this Court to get a
relief of issuance of direction to the University that the
University had acted illegally in declaring the results in
moderation of 30 students, who were given marks by the
petitioner in an erratic manner.
16. Apart from the above, in our considered opinion, the
petitioner being an evaluator/examiner, was required to
keep his hands off once the evaluation sheet was
submitted by him and was not required to indulge in any
kind of head-on-collision with the University authority.
17. All these issues reflected from the record are sufficient
to form an opinion that the filing of the present petition
in the month of September 2023, after about a period of
more than one year of the declaration of result in the
month of June 2023, is nothing but a sheer abuse of the
process of the Court. No infirmity can be attached to the
opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the
petitioner being a paper setter as well as evaluator, his
role is limited to set the paper and evaluate it and he has
no locus to seek any relief in terms of the prayers made
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/446/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
in the Writ petition and, therefore, the abovenoted
judgments relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is of no help.
18. The present appeal has been filed in the month of
January 2025 to agitate the issues as raised before the
Writ court. For the facts noted hereinabove, we are of
the considered opinion that the petitioner has been
unfair in not bringing correct and complete facts before
the learned Single Judge in the original Writ petition.
For the act of the petitioner in approaching this Court
without their being any locus to assail the result
declared by the University by adopting the process of
moderation, after about a period of one year two months,
we find it fit to dismiss the appeal with the cost of
Rs.50,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner
within a period of three weeks from today. The cost so
deposited shall be transmitted to the High Court Legal
Services Committee for the cause of the orphan students
pursuing higher studies. Dismissed, as such.
19. After the order was dictated in the open court, the
request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to
stay the operation of the order is hereby refused because
of the reasoning given hereinabove.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
