The Madras High court has ruled that it is not possible to issue a direction on re-evaluating the examination papers of a person if there is no provision for it in the university rules.
Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice V M Vimla of Madurai bench was dismissing a petition by C Jagadiswaran, a Bachelor of Siddha Medicine and Surgery student, seeking a direction for re-evaluation of two of his papers.
"There is a world of difference between an educational authority ordering for re-evaluation on account of certain large-scale irregularities and right of one person to approach the court and seek mandamus for directing re-evaluation. The court''s power to order re-evaluation especially in matters relating to examinations,is extremely circumscribed.
"Where the educational authorities, who are experts in the field themselves are of the opinion that there must be re-evaluation, this court would not interfere with such decision. But, it does not mean that this court could issue a direction to the university to order re-evaluation." The petitioner submitted that he had failed in three subjects in the third year.
He applied for copies of the answer sheets in the three subjects. He took the copies of the answer sheets to two assistant professors. The experts awarded him 65 per cent in one paper and 79 per cent in another paper.
But in the Tamilnadu Dr M.G.R Medical University examination, he was awarded 35 marks and 22 marks.
Since it was required to pass four out of seven subjects, for getting promoted to the fourth year,he made representation for re-evaluating two papers--medical botany and micro biology.
The University Registrar submitted that the University had the provision for re-evaluation,and it had been withdrawn. The withdrawal was challenged and a division bench had dismissed it.
The petitioner's counsel said the bright career of the student should not be thrown at the mercy of persons who evaluate answer sheets without care and diligence.
With the falling standards in the field of education, the marks scored by the candidate in an examination depended on luck and not quality of answers. The court should provide some leverage for students who suffered genuinely at the hands of the examiners who act in a whimsical manner, counsel said.
Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice V M Vimla of Madurai bench was dismissing a petition by C Jagadiswaran, a Bachelor of Siddha Medicine and Surgery student, seeking a direction for re-evaluation of two of his papers.
"There is a world of difference between an educational authority ordering for re-evaluation on account of certain large-scale irregularities and right of one person to approach the court and seek mandamus for directing re-evaluation. The court''s power to order re-evaluation especially in matters relating to examinations,is extremely circumscribed.
"Where the educational authorities, who are experts in the field themselves are of the opinion that there must be re-evaluation, this court would not interfere with such decision. But, it does not mean that this court could issue a direction to the university to order re-evaluation." The petitioner submitted that he had failed in three subjects in the third year.
He applied for copies of the answer sheets in the three subjects. He took the copies of the answer sheets to two assistant professors. The experts awarded him 65 per cent in one paper and 79 per cent in another paper.
But in the Tamilnadu Dr M.G.R Medical University examination, he was awarded 35 marks and 22 marks.
Since it was required to pass four out of seven subjects, for getting promoted to the fourth year,he made representation for re-evaluating two papers--medical botany and micro biology.
The University Registrar submitted that the University had the provision for re-evaluation,and it had been withdrawn. The withdrawal was challenged and a division bench had dismissed it.
The petitioner's counsel said the bright career of the student should not be thrown at the mercy of persons who evaluate answer sheets without care and diligence.
With the falling standards in the field of education, the marks scored by the candidate in an examination depended on luck and not quality of answers. The court should provide some leverage for students who suffered genuinely at the hands of the examiners who act in a whimsical manner, counsel said.
