IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 1740 OF 2019 (EDN-EX) Between:
Dr.K.Venkata Rao Aged 71 years S/o E.Krishnamurthy Residing at # 449, 24th Main 8th Cross, HSR First Sector Bengaluru-560 102. ... Appellant (By Dr.K.Venkata Rao, Party-in-person) And:
1. The Registrar-Evaluation Karnataka State Law University Nava Nagar, Hubli-580025.
2. The Secretary to Government of Karnataka Department of Law Government Secretariat Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru-560 001.
3. The Director National Assessment and Accreditation Council No.1075, Opp. to National Law School of India University Nagarbhavi, Bengaluru-560 072. ... Respondents (By Sri.P.B.Achappa, AGA. for R2) This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order and judgment passed in the WP.No.23236/2018 dated 08.02.2019 as null and void and to award suitable reliefs to the appellant as prayed for at the WP.23236/2018.
This appeal, coming on for preliminary hearing, this day,
Chief Justice delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Heard the appellant appearing in person. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The appellant joined three years LL.B. Course in a law college affiliated to the Karnataka State Law University (for short, ‘the said University), between the years 2012 to 2017. The appellant completed six semesters of the course. He passed in 24 subjects out of 28 subjects. In 2015, the appellant filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus for challenging the evaluation of his answers sheets. Those proceedings were carried upto the Apex Court. In December – January 2017-
2018, the appellant appeared for six subjects, but he passed only in two subjects. Therefore, the appellant filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following substantive reliefs:
“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. High Court and to decide for fresh re-evaluation and subsequent declaration of its results.
2. To order for the fresh re-evaluation 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 evaluation 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. High Court and to order to remove the illegal and unlawful rules of evaluations upon petitioner’s full and final arguments.
5. To Order KSLU to debar those erratic evaluators whom have erratically valuated the petitioner’s answer books. Further the erratic evaluators should be restrained by not to be given the duty of valuation for any law examinations for a specified 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 the KSLU’s Challenge valuations fees of Rs.12,600/- paid by the petitioner.”
2. The learned Single Judge has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner by passing the order impugned in appeal.
3. The appellant appearing in person submitted that under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the RTI Act’), he has a right to seek copies of the answer papers of the other students and therefore, the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 of the impugned order is incorrect. He invited our attention to the Karnataka State Law University Examination Ordinances - 2014. He places reliance on powers and functions of the Registrar (Evaluation) and in particular, Clause (m), under which he is responsible for redressal of grievances of the students relating to valuation, revaluation, challenge valuation etc. He also invited our attention to various other parts of the Statute starting from the duties and responsibilities of the valuators and reviewers. He also pointed out that one of the guidelines made therein has not been followed in case of answer sheet of the appellant. He invited our attention to Clause 2.1 of the 2009 Ordinance which provides for opportunity to a responsible person or candidate to make a grievance that a student has been favoured or disfavoured by giving high or low marks. He submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the well-settled law as laid down by the Apex Court. He submits that his rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India have been violated.
4. We have considered the submissions. The first prayer seeks a writ of mandamus for calling for all the original answer sheets of the December 2017 Examination undertaken by the appellant along with all the records of valuation. The further prayer is that the Court should peruse the answer sheets and decide about fresh re-evaluation and subsequent declaration of results. The second prayer is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing fresh re-evaluation of answer sheets of the appellant either by senior faculty of law or any other university with due scaling up principles. The prayer in the alternative is that there should be a Court monitored valuation by appointing eminent faculty members of law from any law universities located outside the State of Karnataka.
5. The next prayer is for removal of illegal and unlawful rules of valuation. The further prayer is to direct the University to debar those erratic evaluators who have erratically corrected the answer scripts of the appellant. The last prayer is for payment of costs.
6. The learned Single Judge has noted that the Deputy Registrar of the said University was present in the Court who produced the original answer papers of the appellant and permitted the appellant to look at the same.
7. Looking to the first prayer, while exercising a power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not open for a writ court to examine the answer sheets of the appellant and to order fresh re-evaluation. Such a fresh revaluation cannot be ordered unless relevant rules or regulations permit the same.
8. The answer sheets of the appellant have been assessed by the examiners appointed by the said University. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot record a finding that the assessment made of answer sheets of a student is arbitrary or erratic and then to direct a fresh assessment done through a law teacher from other university in the State or from outside the State. The prayer regarding removal of illegal and unlawful rules of valuation is very vague. The appellant has not set out any specific rules or regulations which have been challenged and the grounds in support of that.
9. The entire writ petition is founded on the assumption that there has been erratic evaluation of the answer sheets of the petitioner by the evaluators. In paragraph 6, the learned Single Judge, after looking at the answer sheets, has held that merely because breakup of the marks is not reflected on the margin of each of the answers, the figures are available on the back sheet of the answer papers. It is rightly observed that the evaluation of non-science subjects by its very nature varies. Moreover, there is a greater latitude retained by the evaluators. Even there is a provision for having a second look by another person. He observed that in such courses, variation is bound to happen, and if the difference is 20% or above, the same goes for the third evaluation.
10. The appellant has made very wide and sweeping prayers in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge that none of the prayers can be acceded to.
11. The appellant appearing in person made a grievance that the representation made by him in terms of the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge has not been decided.
12. There is no merit whatsoever in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. If the appellant has made a representation in terms of the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge, the same shall be decided by the said University, as expeditiously as possible.
Pending application does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-