R RAJESH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a student of Madras University, has filed the above writ petition to call for the original answer paper of the petitioner bearing Register No. 9204577 for the subject 'Paper VI Mechanics' B.Sc., Third Year Examination held in April, 1992 and quash the statement of marks furnished to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent and to award to the petitioner the actual and true marks in the said original answer paper.

(2.) The petitioner joined the B. Sc., Mathematics Course in A. M. Jain College, affiliated to the University of Madras. In the third/final year, there were five subjects/papers, all relating to the main subject Mathematics. According to the petitioner, he did extremely well in all the five subjects and expected to get 100% in each of the five papers/subjects. However, when the result came on 1-7-1992, he was shocked that he had failed in the B. Sc. final year. Out of the five subjects, he was awarded 100% in three subjects and 73% in the fourth subject but only 28% in Paper VI Mechanics. He could not believe that he secured only 28% in the said paper. He, therefore, immediately approached the Principal of his college, who was good enough to address a letter to the 2nd respondent on 2-7-1992 for a review of the marks obtained in the same subject by the petitioner and two other students. The 2nd respondent by a communication dated 14-7-1992 addressed to the Principal of A. M. Jain College, gave the result of the review and informed that out of the three students who had failed in that subject and who had applied for review of that paper, two students were declared as passed but the petitioner's marks were confirmed to be the same 28% as shown in the original results. The petitioner sincerely and truly believed that there is either a human error or a computer error showing 28% marks for the said subject in the computerised statement of marks sent to his college and given to him. According to the petitioner, there are lot of irregularities in the valuation of answer papers and awarding of marks, preparation of computerised mark lists, etc.

(3.) It is pertinent to reproduce the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit regarding the valuation. A few passages are reproduced.