PAWAN KUMAR Vs. V. C. UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved of respondents' refusal to re-evaluate his answer scripts in subjects of Accounting and Financial Management Course No. CS-401 and Translator Design Course No. CS-403 of IVth Semester Examination of Masters in Computer Applications (MCA) Course, petitioner has filed writ petition on hand claiming following relief(s):

(2.) Facts germane to the disposal of petition on hand may be adverted to in a concise form. Petitioner, an employee of University of Jammu and having Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications (PGDCA) to his credit, as claimed by him, was granted admission to MCA Course as an in-service candidate of University of Jammu. He was admitted to Ist Semester. Petitioner claims to have filed application with respondents praying that he be directly admitted to IIIrd Semester of MCA Course. However, respondents did not admit the petitioner to IIIrd Semester of MCA Course. Petitioner appeared in examinations after studying all the six semesters. He appeared in IVth Semester examination held in the month of July 2010. He was shown to have not passed in the subjects CS-401 and CS-403. After obtaining Answer Scripts of these papers from the respondents under RTI Act, he found that the mathematical questions had not been evaluated properly. Petitioner issued a legal notice to respondents for re-evaluation of his Answer Scripts which was turned down vide communication dated 20.04.2011 on the ground that there was no statute for re-evaluation of Answer Scripts of the papers sought by the petitioner. Petitioner assails the provision excluding the facility of re-evaluation in MCA Course as being discriminatory in nature particularly for the reason that reevaluation facility could not be excluded for MCA Course when such facility has been made available in many other courses.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of petitioner that there is no logic in discriminating MCA Course insofar as facility of re-evaluation is concerned; that such exclusion is not based on an intelligible differentia; that there is no nexus between such exclusion and any object sought to be achieved by it and that re-evaluation aims at securing transparency in the examination system and its denial cannot achieve any fruitful purpose.