IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA WP NO.50356/2019(EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
MISS. SNEHA SUNIL VAIDYA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS D/O SRI SUNIL VAIDYA USN NO.1SG16EC106 PURSUING BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING COURSE IN ELECTRONICS SAPTHAGIRI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 14/5, CHIKKASANDRA, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU.
R/AT NO.34, 18TH CROSS MUTHYALANAGAR, BEHIND J P PARK BENGALURU-560 054.
(BY SRI V.R. SARATHY H, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND 1. VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY REP BY ITS REGISTRAR BELAGAVI-590018.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF EVALUATION VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY BELAGAVI-590 018.
3. SAPTHAGIRI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 14/5, CHIKKASANDRA HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 057 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
(BY SRI SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R-
2 UNIVERSITY TO RE-EVALUATE THE PETITIONER’S 4TH SEMESTER ANSWER SCRIPT OF THE CONTROL SYSTEMS (SUBJECT CODE 15EC43) HAVING USN NO.1SG16EC106.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner has sought for a direction to the University to notify the first evaluation ‘30’ marks, obtained by the petitioner in the 4th Semester Control System (Subject Code 15EC43), USN No.1SG16EC106 declaring as pass in the said subject, thereby excluding the second evaluation moderation results of 22 marks in the marks-sheet and further to allow the petitioner to pursue 7th Semester in B.E. EC106 Electronics and Communications Scheme or in the alternative, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the University to add the marks obtained by the petitioner in the first evaluation for the questions No.4a, 5a, 5b and 5c in the 4th Semester Control System (Subject code 15EC43) USN No.1SG16EC106 to the second moderation results and after adding the same, declare the results of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is a student who has completed 6th Semester Graduation Course in Bachelor of Engineering in the Branch of Electronics and Communications at the 3rd respondent Engineering College. It is submitted that the petitioner has joined the Engineering Course in the academic year 2016. The petitioner had appeared for the 3 backlogs of the 4th Semester and 3 backlogs of the 5th Semester along with 6th Semester papers.
3. It is contended that the petitioner has done exceptionally well in the subject paper of 4th Semester Control System. Since, the results were announced by the University as failed, the petitioner has applied for the answer-sheets and on the answer-sheets furnished, it was noticed that the question Nos.4a, 5a, 5b and 5c though attempted and answered by the petitioner, the evaluation reports relating to the said questions, was marked as NA (‘Not Attempted’). Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel submits that in terms of the regulations of the Visvesvaraya Technological University Governing Issue Of Soft Copy And Revaluation Of The Answer Scripts 2013 (‘Regulations’ for short), if the evaluation marks are lesser than original marks, the original marks shall be retained.
5. In the present case, the petitioner’s answer script was selected for second evaluation moderation results, whereby the second evaluation results declared depicts the marks obtained in the 4th Semester Control System i.e. Subject Code 15EC43 as ‘22’ and the first evaluation marks declared is ‘30’. In view of the question Nos.4a, 5a, 5b, and 5c in the said answer script not being evaluated in the second evaluation and in terms of the Regulation No. VI.j(i) of the Regulations, the original marks of ‘30’ has to be retained or the marks to be given to the question Nos.4a, 5a, 5b and 5c requires to be added to the second evaluation marks of ‘22’.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- University has filed a memo, wherein it is submitted that the petitioner had applied for re-valuation and in the re-valuation she got ‘20’ marks, which is less than the original marks. In view of clause VI.j(i) of the Regulations, the original marks relating moderation marks of ‘22’ is to be retained to the petitioner. If any question is not evaluated, then the student may submit an application to the Registrar(Evaluation) requesting for re-valuation unevaluated answer/s. Hence, the respondent-University has communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.11.2019 that the respondent-University will evaluate the petitioner’s answer script of Subject Code 15EC43 Control System from pages 37 to 44.
7. The said memo is placed on record.
8. It is perspicuous from the Regulations No.VI.j(i), that relating to the award of marks after re-valuation, if the re-valuation marks is lesser than the original marks, the original marks shall be retained. Guidelines for Moderator issued by the University indicates that the marks awarded by the moderator are final. The question herein is, whether the original marks awarded in the first evaluation or the marks awarded in the second evaluation moderation results to be retained? ‘original marks’ is not defined in the Regulations. The term ‘ORIGINAL’ in terms of Chambers 21st Dictionary reads as under:
“1 relating to an origin or beginning.
2 existing from the beginning; earliest; first. 3 said of an idea or concept, etc; not though of before; fresh or new. 4 said of a person; creative or inventive. 5 being the first form from which copies, reproductions or translations are made; not copied or derived, etc., from something else.
9. The moderation evaluation is indisputably the second evaluation. If so, the original marks would be construed as the marks obtained by the student in the first valuation. If that to be considered, the marks of ‘30’ obtained by the petitioner in the first evaluation has to be retained, not the moderation marks results of ‘22’ - the second evaluation. It is also pertinent to note that there is glaring mistake on the part of the evaluators in the second evaluation moderation. Admittedly, question Nos.4a, 5a, 5b and 5c in the Subject Code 15EC43 of the petitioner has not been evaluated. To ascertain the same, the original answer scripts were called and examined by this Court. On examination of the original answer script, it is apparent that question Nos.4a, 5a, 5b and 5c of the subject code is EC 43 has not been evaluated.
10. It is needless to observe that the marks sheets issued by the University would decide the career/future of the student. The evaluators have to be more careful while evaluating the answer papers of the students, that too, in the second evaluation. For any negligence or callousness of the evaluators, the students should not suffer. The discrepancies in the first evaluation and the second evaluation has arisen due to the non-evaluation of the question Nos.4a, 5a, 5b and 5c in the answer scripts of the student relating to the Subject Code 15EC43. Keeping this peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the original marks of ‘30’ evaluated in the first evaluation shall be retained. The respondent- University shall announce the results of the petitioner retaining the marks ‘30’ in the 4th Semester - Control System Subject Code 15EC43, in an expedite manner.
Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of above.
Sbs* Sd/- JUDGE