DEEP CHAND Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue in the writ petition is with regard to the marks of the petitioner in the paper Physics Part I of B.Sc. Part -I (three years graduation course). The petitioner is a student of the S.S. Jain Subodh College, Jaipur which is affiliated to the University of Rajasthan.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that he wrote the B.Sc. Part -I examination, 2013. The result of the said examination was declared by the University of Rajasthan on 10.1.2014. The petitioner was declared passed including in the subject of Physics where he secured 51 marks out of 100 marks. The petitioner was however dissatisfied with having been marked '00' in Physics Part -I of B.Sc. Part -I examination. Consequent to which in terms of the University of Rajasthan Ordinance he applied for a re -evaluation in the said paper. In the re -evaluation the petitioner obtained '6' marks as against '00' in the first instance. Petitioner submits that his being marked '00' marks in the purported original evaluation and 06 marks on the purported re -evaluation in Physics Part -I of B.Sc. Part -I paper was wholly arbitrary as the petitioner otherwise is a good student and was expecting 25 marks out of 35 marks in the said paper. In fact he secured 23 and 22 marks in Physics Part -II and Part -III of the said examination The petitioner stands also dissatisfied with the result of re -valuation of the answer -book of P Physics Part -I of B.Sc. Part -I paper. And therefore resorted to the right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2005') and obtained a photo copy of his answer book of Physics -I of B.Sc. Part -I. It has been submitted that on obtaining a photo copy of his answer -book under the Act of 2005 of the paper in issue, the petitioner was shocked to find that his copy has not been checked at all by the Examiner/s of the University both during the initial evaluation and subsequent re -evaluation when he attempted each question and his answers thereto were to be evaluated individually and marked at the end of each answer, it was not so done. It has been submitted that the petitioner attempted the requisite five questions out of ten in the paper in issue i.e. question No. 1(a), 1(b), 3(a), 3(b), 5(a), 5(b), 7(a), 7(b), 10(a) and 10(b). None of the answers to the aforesaid questions were individually marked and in -fact the entire answer -book does not indicate any marking and application of mind. The petitioner was marked only on the title page qua the questions attempted. It has been submitted that the manner of checking of the petitioner's answer -sheet of Physics -I of B.Sc. Part -I paper was wholly illegal, arbitrary, vitiated by complete non -application of mind, violative of the petitioner's right to a fair evaluation of his answer -sheet in terms of the instructions of the University of Rajasthan to its examiners to mark the students for every answer to the questions attempted and tantamounts to no evaluation at all in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner is therefore entitled to a direction that the answer -book of the petitioner of Physics Part -I of B.Sc Part -I paper be re -evaluated by another examiner and the petitioner's mark -sheet accordingly modified.

(3.) I have perused the photo copy of the answer -book of the petitioner in respect of Physics -I of B.Sc Part -I paper. It is quite clear that none of the five questions answered by the petitioner each in two parts has been independently evaluated by the examiner -even though on the title page of the answer -sheet the petitioner has been marked for each of the questions attempted by him. Instruction No. 16 to the examiners for theory examination issued by the University of Rajasthan reads as under: