SMLPA SINGH RAJPUT v. TECHNICAL

SMLPA SINGH RAJPUT D/0 SHRI S.S. RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/0 SHUBHAM VIHAR, NEAR OM MT TNTrTpT T ZONE, MUNGELI ROAD, CIVIL LINES, BILASPUR (C.G.) P.S. RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS) v/s (1) ' (2) TECHNICAL CHHATTISGARH SWAMI VIVEKANAND UNIVERSITY, THROUGH: ITS REGISTRAR,BHILAI, P.S. KOTWALI, SECTOR 10, DISTRICT DURG (C.G.) VICE-CHANCELLOR,' SWAMI CHHATTISGARH TECHNICAL VIVEKANAND UNIVERSITY, BfflLAI, P.S. CITY KOTWALI, SECTOR 10, DISTRICT DURG (C.G.) (3)~ BHILAI INSTITUTE TECHNOLOGY, THROUGH: PRINCIPAL, NEAR BUNGLOWS, P.S NAGAR, DURG (C.G.) OF ITS 32 MOHAN y (4) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, MAHANADI BHAWAN, NAYA RAIPUR,~P.S. MANDIRHASUAD/RAKHI DISTRICT RAIPUR (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2;t)F CHHATTISGARH HIGH w -^ COURT APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ACT, 2006, READ WITH RULE 156 (10) OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES2007. ^ 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J WritAppeal No. 1171 of 2012 Appellant Shitpa Singh Rajput VERSUS Respondents Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University and others. WritAppeal under Section 2(1) ofthe ChhattisgarhHigh Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 Appearance: Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for the Appellant. Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, counsel for Respondents- 1 and 2. Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/ respondent-4 JUDGEMENT (20th February, 2013)

Bhilai Institute of Technology, Durg (the Institute) Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai (the University). Ms. Shilpa Singh Rajput (the Appellant) took admission in MBA course in July.2010 in the Institute. is affiliated to

The Appellant appeared in the first semester in November, 2010 and passed in all subjects except Quantitative Techniques in Management (QTM).

The Appellant appeared in the second semester in May, 2011 and secured overall marks of 64.3%. She appeared in the third semester and also in the backlog paper of QTM in November, 2011. She scored 67.5% in the third semester examination, however, she was declared failedin the backlog paper ofQTM.

The Appellant filed an application under Right to Information Act seeking answer-sheet of QTM paper. She was provided answer-sheet as well as evaluation-sheet ofQTM paper in the month of April, 2012. ^. '-t./ *. I? J

According to the Appellant, there were mistakes in evaluating the answers and filed representations on 09.04.2012 and 17.04.2012 pointing out the mistakes and to recheck her answers so that she can appear in the fourth semester. However, when no order was passed on the representations, she filed Writ Petition(C) No.742 of 2012. it was dismissed on 29.11.2012. Hence, the present writ appeal.

We have heard the counsel for the parties.

The Appellant was given answer-sheet, however according to her, complete answer-sheet was not given to her and some pages, namely, page number 5 and 6 were missing. This was also alleged in paragraph 8.8 of the writ petition.

There is neither specific reply to the aforesaid paragraph nor these pages were filed before the single judge; atleast no such copy was given to the counsel for the Appellant. However, before us photostat copy of the entire answer-sheet has been produced in which the aforesaid pages for the are included after giving copy of the same to the counsel Appellant.

It is not disputed that there were mistakes in evaluating the answers of the Appellant. They are as follows: • The Appellant had not attempted questions 2(b) and 3(b), however, she was awarded 3 and 2 marks in the same; • She had attempted questions 2(d), 3(d), and 4(c), however she was shown not to have attempted these questions.

The University has admitted that the aforesaid mistakes have been committed. However, it is submitted on behalf of the University that the mistakeswere corrected but there is no change in the marks awarded to the Appellant. It is stated that: • The Appellant had not attempted questions 2(b) and 3(b) but marks of question 2(d) and 3(d) were wrongly mentioned against question 2(b) and 3(b); Th,e question 4(c) was attempted but its marks were given in 4(d). • y s^ t ^a^ The answer to the question 4(d) was re-checked and zero marks have been awarded in the re-evaluation. Thus, according to the University there is no change iathe marks.

It is admitted that there were mistakes in evaluating and marking the answers. It shows that the examiner was negligent in examining the copies.

The University has got the copies rechecked by the same examiner, The possibility that such an who had checked the answers earlier. examiner would try to cover his mistakes and maintain the same marks cannot be ruled out. In such a situation, the University ought to have got the copies examined by a different examiner.

We have also seen the answers. In answer to some questions, the steps seem to be correctly taken and some marks ought to have been given to the Appellant, even if the ultimate answer was wrong. Yet, the Appellant was awarded zero marks in the same. This ought not to have happened. ^4S

The correct course for us to send these copies for re-examination to a new examiner and thereafter award the marks. However, in the circumstances of the case, we do not consider it fit to do so.

The Appellant admittedly appeared in the QTM examination in In pursuance ofthe backlog paper in November, 2012 and has cleared it. interim order in the writ petition, the Appellant also appeared in the fourth semester examination in May, 2012. Sufficient time of the Appellant has gone by. The fault, Appellant was not at fault. if any, is of the University or of the examiner. The

tn the aforesaid circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose off the writ appeal with the following directions: • The University may declare the result of the fourth semester of the examination in which the Appellant had appeared in fhe month of May. 2012 and in case she has passed the examination, her i mark-sheet and degree may be given to her on its basis; In case, she has failed in the fourth semester, in that event she may be permitted to appear in the next fourth semester at the earliest.