The petitioner challenges the regulation by which conditions are prescribed for only one revaluation in the B.Tech Course in which the petitioner is studying. The regulation of the University should be departed from in the case of the petitioner since the valuation she got conducted by 'experts' outside the University reveals that she should have passed in flying colours in the exam in which she failed. Admittedly, the valuation by the University did not yield any result to that end. 2. The petitioner challenges the regulation as such which dis-entitled the petitioners for a further revaluation. Revaluation is a method adopted by the examining Board to avoid individual predilections of an examiner. It cannot be extended to ridiculous results of valuation being conducted again and again till the student records satisfaction. A reasonable prescription made by academic bodies cannot be WPC.No.34660/2014 : 2 :
lightly interfered with by the courts, which have no expertise in such academic matters. No arbitrariness can be found in the aforementioned regulation. Standards prescribed by academic bodies ought to be strictly followed and no prejudice can be pleaded by individual students, for reason only of their having failed in a paper/subject.
3. But for the petitioner's assertion above of 'expert' valuation outside the University the petitioner does not disclose the identity of such 'experts'. No doubt the student cannot resort to their own methods of revaluation as has been affirmed by this Court in Sruthi Rajagopal v. Mahatma Gandhi University [2014 (2) KLT 945].
4. The issue is also squarely covered by decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Phupesh Kumar Sheth (1984 (4) SCC 27 ), Pramodkumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission (2004(6) SCC714), Secretary, W.B Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Iyan Das and others (2007(8) SCC 242).
WPC.No.34660/2014 : 3 :
Though the principle has been clarified in the context of the Right to Information Act in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (2011(8) SCC 497), the declaration that such right would depend upon the provisions and rules of the examining body have been upheld. In the present case, the examining body, the University, has by its provisions provided the instances in which revaluation is permitted. This Court would be slow to interfere with such prescription of a competent academic body [Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. All India Council for Technical Education [(2013) 3 SCC 385].
In such circumstance, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge