REBHURAMAN Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. X. Varghese for the appellant. The appellant filed OP 7556/98 to direct the respondents to conduct afresh revaluation of the appellant's answer books by the independent team of experts to be nominated by this Court or else by the Professors of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore and also to direct the respondents to communicate the revalued marklist to the appellant and to refix the appellant's rank in the light of the revalued marks.

(2.) The appellant was a student of the Five-Year LL.B. Course in Government Law College, Ernakulam for the year 1992-97. The examination for the said course was conducted by the respondents annually and the appellant had passed the First Year, to fourth year examinations. The appellant appeared for the fifth year LL.B, examination which was conducted in the month of June, 1997. According to the appellant he has completed the said exams successfully with a lot of satisfaction and hope. The result of the said examination was published in the year October, 1997. The appellant was awarded 534 marks out of 800 which was shown in Ext. P-1. This was 40-45 short of what the appellant hoped, would secure. The appellant was awarded second rank by the University. Dissatisfied at the results the appellant gave five out of six theory papers for revaluation. The appellant was awarded 15 marks more in the revaluation which is clear from Ext. P-2. The appellant was not awarded more marks in the revaluation in Paper III (Labour Law I), Paper IV (Labour Law II) and Paper VI (Professional Ethics, Advocacy etc.). In Paper II and Paper IV the appellant was confident of securing more than 70%, which the marks awarded to here in the revaluation of the said two papers were 70 and 71 respectively. According to the appellant he was intentionally denied the marks he deserved for the deliberate and malicious purpose of not granting him the first rank, especially since the current first rank holder is a very close relative of one of the senior professors of Govt. Law College, Ernakulam. In the above circumstances the appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to direct the respondents for a fresh expert valuation of his answer books. J. B. Koshy, J. by his judgment dated 28-4-1998 declined to allow the plea of the appellant seeking direction to the respondents to conduct fresh revaluation of the appellant's answer books by an independent team of experts to be nominated by this Court or else by the Professors of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. The learned Judge while considering the appellant's petition dismissed the same, declined to grant the reliefs sought for on many aspects, including the ground that if the writ petition is thus allowed it will enable a 'Pandora's box' to be opened as other students also will come with such a plea. Learned counsel for the appellant apart from the above statement also submitted that the merit of the appellant's case was left unconsidered by the learned single Judge of this Court while dismissing the appellant's case. Learned counsel for the appellant again requested this Court to call for the entire records pertaining to the valued answer sheets of the appellant so as to realise the genuineness of the appellant's claim with reference to the integrity of the specific grounds raised in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is scope for favouritism and injustice since the teachers can make out the answer papers by every student from their respective handwriting. Therefore the appellant apprehended that he was intentionally denied the marks he deserved for the deliberate action of the teachers. Learned counsel also submitted that the first rank holder applied for revaluation and as a result got six more marks and if this had not happened the ranks would have been converted and the appellant would have got the first rank. Learned counsel further contended that the above is a significant factor to be noted that it is only in the rarest of rare cases that the first rank holder submitted the papers for revaluation and solely because of this he sustained his rank.

(3.) We have gone through the entire pleading and gave a patient hearing to the learned counsel for the appellant. We are unable to appreciate or accept any of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion in the rules and regulations of the University there is no scope for revaluation of final year LL.B. examination by any outside agency or by any outside experts or by Professors of any outside University. There is no such practice or system in the University in which the appellant studied. Secondly the appellant has not impleaded the first rank holder or the senior Professor against whom allegations have been made. They were not made parties to the O.P. Learned counsel submitted that he has made allegations against the first rank holder and also on the senior Professor. We are of the opinion that mere allegations of mala fides in the O.P. without any supporting materials and without making the persons concerned as parties to the O.P. such a contention cannot be countenanced or encouraged. In our opinion except making allegations the appellant has not substantiated the allegations made in O.P. Courts have held by catena of decisions that the decision of the University or educational institutions in the educational and academic matters is not liable to be interfered with unless there is proved mala fides or decision of the University is based on extraneous considerations or against law, rules or regulations. The Supreme Court in many of its decisions held that in the absence of legal infirmities the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of academicians as is sitting in appeal. It is held that there is no such rule or fairplay or natural justice of reasonableness that an examinee who is dissatisfied with the results has got a right to personal inspection of his scripts or right to ask for revaluation in the absence of any rule. The only allegation by the appellant is that he did not receive the marks as expected. In our opinion that cannot be a ground for revaluation by an outside agency other than the teachers of the university concerned. We are of the view that since the appellant's request for revaluation has been entertained by the University and in the revaluation the appellant has secured 15 more marks would clearly prove that there is no substance in the allegation raised by the appellant that the University teachers and senior Professor have acted against the appellant. The findings of the learned Judge rejecting the request of the appellant for further revaluation by an outside agency is perfectly in order. No interference is called for. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. CMP No. 2856/ 98 also stands dismissed. No costs.