RISHI JOSHI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner appeared in B.A. I examination held in 1995 in Psychology, Economic and English Literaturer. He was dissatisfied with the result of Economic paper II. Therefore, he applied for scrutiny on 14.11.1996. Later on, he applied for and appeared in the second examination in all the three papers in English. However, on scrutiny there was no change in the number secured by the petitioner in Economics II. In the second examination of English, the petitioner had improved substantially. On this background the petitioner claims that in view of provisions "Contained Regulation 14 of Chapter 31 of the University Calendar it was incumbent upon the Allahabad University to revaluate the answer book of Economics paper-II. On the other hand, the University had illegally exercised the power conferred on it under Regulation 13 in that it had only scrutinised with regard to the marks allotted/awarded without revaluating. It has been strongly contended that the petitioner would have secured much better result if it was properly evaluated. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for the following relief :

(2.) Shri Vikram Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that Regulation 13 prescribes scrutiny with regard to the marks obtained by a candidate. According to him. Regulation 13 in confined to checking if any question or part of a question has been left unmarked or if a mistake has been made in the addition of marks and to arrange for the rectification of such omission or mistake. Whereas Regulation 14 uses the word 'recheck' which means re-valuation, since Regulation 14 has not confined the rechecking as has been specifically confined in Regulation 13. According to him, re-checking is inserted after the checking as contemplated in Regulation 13. Therefore, re-checking has to be given a distinct and separate meaning and something other than the checking contemplated in Regulation 13. Thus according to him, the word 'rechecking' connotes revaluation.

(3.) Mr. Ashok Bhushan, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that Regulations, 13 and 14 deals with scrutiny. According to him Regulation 13 deals with scrutiny to be made by the University itself on its own accord on certain conditions. While Regulation 14 permits a candidate to apply for scrutiny, therefore, it would be rechecking for scrutinising the script in terms of Regulation 13. According to him, the procedure for re-valuation is very much in existence in Chapter 27 which has since been deleted by a resolution dated 19.4.1985 by the Arts Faculty of the University. According to him, Chapter 26-A was introduced for second examination with effect from 1980 permitting a candidate to improve his marks through second examination on the same subject and paper if such a candidate is dis- satisfied with the result of the first examination. Thus the scope of scrutiny and re-valuation having been dealt with in different Chapters cannot overlap each other simply because of Regulations 13 and 14 being in existence in Chapter 31. He points out that the petitioner had appeared in second examination in all the three papers in English whereas he has applied for scrutiny under Regulation 14 in respect of Economics II paper. Therefore, according to him, the writ petition should be dismissed.