HARDEV PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Petitioner had appeared in LL.M. 2nd Year Examination of the Year 2003 conducted by the respondent University. The answer sheets of all such students including the petitioner, who had appeared in the Environmental Law paper of the said examination was examined by one Dr. P. C. Vishwakarma. The Vice-Chancellor of the University, for the reason that exceptionally higher marks have been awarded to the students, decided to get the answer sheets of all the students in respect of said paper of Environmental Law re-checked by another examiner.

(2.) CERTAIN students, who had received more than pass marks in the said paper on the basis of the marks awarded by Dr. P. C. Vishwakarma, filed writ petition before the Court, being Writ Petition No. 60371 of 2005, with the contention that the Vice-Chancellor has no jurisdiction to direct re-evaluation of the answer sheets once the same has been examined by a duly appointed examiner.

(3.) THE records were accordingly placed before the Examination Committee in compliance to the judgment of this Court. THE Examination Committee found that examiner, who had re-valuated the answer sheets for 2nd time, was not approved as an examiner by the Examination Committee and, therefore, he could not lawfully evaluate the answer sheets of students of LL.M, as has been done. Accordingly the University took a decision to get fresh evaluation of the answer sheets of all the students by an examiner duly approved by the Examination Committee. A third examiner was appointed, who evaluated the answer sheets of all the students of LL.M. 2nd year in the concerned subject and awarded marks. This third evaluation of the answer sheets by an examiner approved by the Examination Committee is being objected to by the petitioner only on the ground that present petitioner was not a party in the Writ Petition No. 60371 of 2005 wherein orders were passed resulting in re-evaluation of the answer sheets for the third time and, therefore, the judgment of the Court will not be binding upon the petitioner nor the right of the petitioner can be adversely effected because of 3rd evaluation.