UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Vs. KIRAN GOPALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can an examiner omit to give zero mark to a candidate on the ground that the answer to the question is not worthy of giving any marks is the question that has come up for consideration in this case.

(2.) Petitioner in this case appeared for second and fourth semester examinations of MBA conducted by the University of Kerala during June-July 2005. He failed in one paper, each in the second and fourth semester examinations. Hence he has approached this Court seeking a direction to the University as well as the Controller of Examinations to value the answers in the answer scripts of the petitioner to question No. 15 of MBA (203) Research Methods for Management and question Nos. 4 and 9 of MBA (402) Strategic Corporate Finance of the Second and Fourth Semester Examinations of MBA (FT) respectively by the same examiners (1st and 2nd examiners respectively) and add the marks to the marks noted in Exts.P3 and P4. Learned single Judge directed the University to produce the marks sheets in respect of the examinations of the above two semesters and noticed that first examiner has left the column relating to the answer to question No. 15 blank. On the other hand, the 2nd examiner has awarded 7 marks to the petitioner for question No. 15 Learned single Judge also noticed that in respect of fourth semester examination the second examiner left the columns relating to the answers to question Nos. 4 and 9 blank while the first examiner awarded 7 marks and 5 marks respectively for those answers to the petitioner. University was asked to explain as to why marks were not awarded to the above mentioned questions. Controller of Examinations forwarded the explanation given by the Professor and Head, Department of Business Administration with regard to the second semester MBA (FT) examinations. The relevant portion of the explanation is extracted hereunder.

(3.) Above facts would indicate that so far as second semester examination is concerned, the first examiner has left the column relating to answer to question No. 15 blank. On the other hand, the second examiner has awarded 7 marks to the petitioner to question No. 15. In respect of 4th semester, the second examiner left columns relating to answers to question Nos. 4 and 9 blank and on the other hand, the first examiner awarded 7 marks and 5 marks respectively for those answers to the petitioner. Evidently, when the first examiner left the column relating to answers so far as question No. 15 blank the second examiner awarded 7 marks to that question. With regard to 4th semester the first examiner awarded 7 and 5 marks respectively to question Nos. 4 and 9, but second examiner left the column blank so far as those questions are concerned. Facts would indicate that not even zero marks have been awarded to question No. 15 by first examiner for the second semester examination and to question Nos. 4 and 9 by second examiner of 4th semester examination. Stand of the respondents and valuer seems to be is that those questions deserve no marks.