MISS APARNA HEGDE Vs. REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) VTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case of a person with speech and hearing disability knocking the doors of this Court seeking timely intervention to direct the respondent-University to re-evaluate the petitioner's answer paper in Bachelor of Architecture subject - Graph Theory and Combinatorics.

(2.) The petitioner had written the 4th semester examinations in Bachelor of Architecture Course. When the marks were declared, it was found that the petitioner had failed in two subjects-Engineering Maths-IV, Graph theory and Combionartics. However, in the supplementary examination held in the month of March-April 2015, the petitioner passed in Engineering Maths-IV, but once again failed in Graph Theory and Combinatorics. The petitioner sought for a copy of the answer script and she was provided with a copy of the answer script. Before the petitioner could apply for revaluation, she requested her Subject Lecturer to evaluate the paper so that she will have a fair idea as to whether the marks awarded was correct or whether she deserved more. It is contended that the Subject Lecturer evaluated the paper dispassionately and the Lecturer found that the she was eligible to get 12 more marks and she should have passed in the paper. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for revaluation and in fact she wrote a letter dtd. 21/9/2015 addressed to the Registrar (Evaluation) of the respondent-University bringing to the Registrar's notice that she is a person with special needs and the paper had to be evaluated keeping in mind the disability of the petitioner. Nevertheless the marks of the revaluation remained unchanged.

(3.) Learned Counsel Sri Ganapathi Hegde, appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to a Circular dtd. 22/3/2004 issued by the Education Department of Government of Karnataka. While taking this Court through the Circular, it was pointed out that instructions were given to all Universities in the matter of conducting of the examination and evaluation of the answer scripts of differently abled persons. Most importantly, it was pointed out from the Circular that provision is sought to be made to allocate extra time to complete the answer paper. At clause (5) of the C ircular, it is provided that answer scripts of the students who are differently abled should be marked in 'Green' so that such answer scripts are evaluated by persons who would bear in mind that they are evaluating answer scripts of persons who are differently abled. It is specifically stated that the evaluator should have special regard for the said answer scripts and evaluation should be done unlike the evaluation of other normal students. The learned Counsel would therefore submit that when the State Government has made such provisions, the respondent-University has failed to comply with the Circular. More importantly, it is submitted that inspite of several opportunities given to the respondent-University, statement of objections are not filed. It is therefore submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioner should be taken as accepted by the respondent-University without objections.