N VENKATESH Vs. ANNA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come out with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to re-assess the petitioner-s answer book in Digital Image Processing having Subject Code EC 1009 of the year 2009-2010 and declare that the petitioner has passed the above subject.

(2.) (i) It is the case of the petitioner that he is a student of Meenakshi College of Engineering at K.K. Nagar, Chennai. He has joined the College in the academic year 2006-2007. As he had secured 456 marks out of 500 marks in the Plus Two examinations with 86% he claimed that he is a bright student. He had written seven semester examinations as an Under-graduate in Bachelor of Engineering in the Faculty of Electronic and Communication Engineering. He passed all the six semester examinations with good marks in all the subjects and secured 80% aggregate. The seventh semester examination was held in November-December 2009. In the 7th semester examination he wrote eight papers. In other papers he secured 69% in EC1403, 100% in EC1405, 67% in EC1402, 70% in EC 1401, 99% in EC1404, 67% in MG1401 and 59% in EC1011. In EC 1009 he was declared as failed and the marks secured by him is said to be 46% made up of 19 plus 27 in the internal and external marks respectively. He had applied for revaluation and received a communication dated nil stating that his marks has increased to 49%, that is 3 marks more than what he secured earlier. But, in the result there was no change and he was declared as having failed in Digital Image Processing.(ii)It is the case of the petitioner that he was awarded lesser marks and therefore he applied for a review of his answer book once again. He handed over the answer book to one Ms. Usha Bhanu, N., Assistant Professor, E.C.E. Department of his College and she evaluated the paper and awarded 68%, based on which the petitioner claims that if the review was done correctly, he would have been given more marks and therefore there is a need for reassessment of answer scripts.(iii) According to the petitioner, in Part A questions, four answers were left unevaluated and he was awarded only zero marks. In regard to Part B which carries questions of 16 marks each, he had written five questions. The marks awarded by the examiner is 4,6,8,3,3 totalling 24 marks while the reviewing staff has awarded 54 marks. As regards Part A the reviewing staff has awarded 14 marks, while the examiner awarded 10 marks. The total marks awarded by the examiner is 34 out of 100 which was moderated to 80 and he was awarded 27 which later on increased to 30 on revaluation. As regards the 68% awarded by the reviewing staff for 100, if moderated it would come to 54 and if the internal marks of 19 is added, it will come to 73 in which case he should have been declared as passed in the subject Digital Image Processing and therefore, the petitioner prays for the reassessment of the answer books in this petition.

(3.) IT is the foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in all the six semesters the petitioner had secured higher marks and he had done the seventh semester examinations also and in one of the papers, he was declared failed and therefore, revaluation was sought for and the review has been done by the respondents with the examiners appointed by them. Therefore, the petitioner sought for re-assessment of the answer sheet based on his own lecturer's assessment. Further, the learned counsel submits that both in the revaluation as well as review he has not secured the required marks for passing and therefore reassessment is required to be made.