IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 23236 OF 2018 (EDN-EX) BETWEEN:
DR K VENKATA RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN) S/O E.KRISHNAMURTHY, NO.449, 24TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, HSR FIRST SECTOR, AGARA, BENGALURU - 560102 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. DR K VENKATA RAO, PARTY IN PERSON) AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR EVALUATION KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY (KSLU IN SHORT), NAVA NAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580025.
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001 3. THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION COUNCIL (NAAC IN SHORT) NO.1075, OPP.NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-560072 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANAPATHY BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R2; R3 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ALL THE ORIGINAL ANSWER BOOKS OF THE DECEMBER 2017 EXAMINATIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONER ON THE SUBJECTS NAMELY (1)COMPANY LAW, (2)PROPERTY LAW, (3)JURISPRUDENCE, (4) LABOUR LAW, (5) PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND (6) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS-I ALONG WITH ALL THE RECORDS OF VALUATIONS DONE BE SUBMITTED TO THE HON. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN A SEALED COVER FORTHWITH FOR THE KIND PERUSAL OF THE HON. HIGH COURT AND TO DECIDE FOR FRESH RE-EVALUATION AND SUBSEQUENT DECLARATION OF ITS RESULTS AND ETC., THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner, a party-in-person who averredly holds a Doctorate Degree in the faculty of Engineering, has knocked at the doors of Writ Court with nebulous and multiple reliefs against the respondents herein, as under:
“1. To call for all the original answer books of the December 2017 examinations undertaken by the petitioner on the subjects namely (1) Company Law, (2) Property Law, (3) Jurisprudence, (4) Labour Law, (5) Public International Law And (6) Intellectual Property Rights-I along with all the records of valuations done be submitted to the Hon. High Court of Karnataka in a sealed cover forthwith for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble High Court and to decide for fresh re-valuation and subsequent declaration of its results.
2. To order for the fresh revaluation of the petitioner’s six answer books of his December 2017 examination either by any senior faculties of Law of any other University other than KSLU with due scaling up principles, at the earliest to get its results declared as final and valid for the award of petitioner’s mark in those subjects, treating the earlier December 2017 examinations, its evaluations and its award of marks are null and void.
3. Alternatively to order for the court monitored valuation by appointing eminent faculties of Law from any Law Universities located inside or outside the State of Karnataka which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit.
4. To order KSLU to submit the full text/compliment of their Examination Ordinance – 2014 for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble High Court and to order to remove the illegal and unlawful rules of valuations upon petitioner’s full and final arguments.
5. To order KSLU to debar those erratic evaluators whom have erratically evaluated the petitioners answer books. Further the erratic evaluators should be restrained by not to be given the duty of valuation for any Law examinations for a specific period as the Hon. High Court may find and deem fit.
6. To order for awarding the cost of this litigation and the full refund of KSLU’s Challenge valuation fees of Rs.12,600/- paid by the petitioner”.
2. The respondents after service of notice have entered appearance through their counsel. The 1st respondent- University has filed the Statement of Objections opposing the petition prayers. In compliance with the direction of this Court, the Deputy Registrar of the University, namely, Mr.Rajur personally being present has made available to the Court the original Answer Papers of the petitioner relating to the subjects in question and had graciously permitted the petitioner to look into the same in the open court.
3. In sum & substance petitioner contends that the valuation of the subject papers has been conducted erratically, irrationally and without due application of mind and therefore the marks awarded by the evaluators do not truly and correctly reflect the performance of the petitioner and thus the very purpose of valuation and challenged valuation has been defeated. In support of his contention the petitioner took this Court through the Answer Papers and the entries of marks made by the evaluators.
4. The petitioner founding his case on the assumed irrationality, unreasonableness and non-application of mind attributable to evaluators submits that there should be a direction for fresh valuation of the subject papers by new set of evaluators and that the process should be Court monitored. He further submits that the University is not justified in not referring the papers in question for third valuation when the percentage difference between the regular valuation and challenged valuation is considerably high. Lastly, he finds fault with the University in not furnishing the Answer Books of the top scorers in all the subjects.
5. Learned panel counsel for the respondent-University per contra submits that the prayers of the petitioner cannot be granted inasmuch as:
(a) Merely because marks awarded in the valuation and challenged valuation are less than what the petitioner had expected, there cannot be a direction for re-valuation even when the percentage difference between two evaluations is less than 20% of the total marks prescribed for the paper in question;
(b) Ordinarily, Court monitored valuation of Answer Papers is not permissible in Writ Jurisdiction since it is a matter of academics pure and simple wherefrom Courts should shy away from interference, in the absence of exceptional circumstances;
(c ) Where personal malafides are not attributed, it is not permissible to the Writ Court to direct a wholesale revaluation, especially when no special case is made out by the petitioner for taking such an extraordinary measure and an argument to the contra may lay down an undesirable precedent that would work out great hardship and injustice to the evaluators and the Universities;
(d) The Answer Papers of the students are in a way their intellectual property and therefore in the absence of a policy decision of the University, petitioner is not justified in seeking the copies of the Answer Books of the top scorers.
5. I have heard the petitioner party-in-person and Sri Ganapathy Bhat, learned counsel for respondent- University and Smt. Pramodini Kishan, Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.2-State. I have also perused the petition papers.
6. This Court personally glanced the Answer Papers of the petitioner in original made available by the Deputy Registrar, Mr. Rajur. There is nothing available in support of the contention of the petitioner that everything has been done erroneously, irrationally and without application of mind, merely because the break-up of marks is not reflected on the margin of each of the answers, although figures are available on the back sheet of the Answer Papers. No rule of binding conduct is pointed to show that this course is impermissible.
7. The evaluation of non-science subjects by their very nature varies and there is a greater latitude retained by the evaluators subject to challenged valuation/re-valuation so that there shall be a second look by another person. Even here too, the variation is bound to happen and if the difference is 20% or above of the total number of marks prescribed for the paper, the same goes to the third evaluation in terms of 2009 Ordinance promulgated under the provisions of Sec.48 of the Karnataka State Law University Act, 2000, whereof paragraph 2.1 reads as under:
“2.1 In case, there is any complaint to the Vice-Chancellor, made within 3 weeks from the date of declaration of results by any responsible person/candidate to the effect that a student has been favoured or disfavoured by giving very high marks or low marks, the Vice-Chancellor may get it reviewed. The candidate has to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as processing fee per paper. In addition to this, the candidate has to deposit an amount of Rs.100/-. In case the charge is proved, only an amount of Rs.1,000/- will be returned and the charge is not proved, the deposit amount will be forfeited to the University. For determining the marks obtained by the candidate at the Challenge Valuation, if the marks awarded in the Challenge Valuation are less than the original award, then the original marks be retained and if marks awarded in the Challenge Valuation are more than the original award, but less than 20% of the maximum marks for the paper/subject when compared to earlier awarded marks, the marks obtained at the Challenge Valuation be awarded. In case, the difference between the original award and Challenge Valuation are more than 20% of the maximum marks of the paper/subject, the paper be sent to another examiner for valuation after fresh code number is put on such papers, the candidate be awarded average of the best two marks awarded.”
8. In all these Answer Papers of the petitioners the difference is less than 20% of the total marks prescribed for the subject in question as against the two valuations inter se. The Bangalore University Ordinances banked upon by the petitioner for seeking reference for third valuation when the percentage difference is 15 or more, are not applicable when there is a separate Ordinance made by the respondent-University whose text of the language is in marked variance with that of the Bangalore University.
9. Lastly, no provision of Law or Statutes is brought to the notice of Court which gives a right to a student to procure copies of the Answer Papers of other students of the same course in the University. No special circumstances are shown to dispel the contention of the University that these Answer Papers are in a way the intellectual property of their authors, although no much consideration is made to decide whether they constitute intellectual property at all. This question is apt for consideration in an appropriate case.
10. No case is made out for the grant of any relief to the petitioner at the hands of this Court. The grant of relief on the unsubstantiated grounds urged would affect the very autonomy and functioning of the University especially in the matters pertaining to academics and such interference may lay down a wrong precedent which would have abundant abuse potential.
11. In the above circumstances this writ petition fails.
However, this dismissal would not come in the way of petitioner making appropriate representation to the concerned for the redressal of his grievances, if any.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/