The petitioners challenge the regulation by which conditions are prescribed for revaluation in the MBBS Course in which the petitioners are studying. The regulation of the University provides for a double valuation and if the difference in such double valuation is above a certain percentage there is a third valuation also provided. Admittedly the petitioners' double valuation did not show any drastic difference as to attract the provision for a third valuation. The petitioners challenge the regulation as such which dis-entitled the petitioners for revaluation. Revaluation is a method adopted by the examining Board to avoid individual predilections of an examiner. In the regulations of the respondent University, there is a provision for double valuation, which takes care of the so called “hawk dove”(strict-liberal) effect in valuation. A further (third) valuation is also prescribed in the event of wide dis-parity in the marks. A reasonable prescription made by academic bodies cannot be lightly interfered with by the WPC.No.13387/2014 : 2 : 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.
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). 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 WPC.No.13387/2014 : 3 :
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