@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V. Dhanapalan, J.@mdashThe petitioner has come out with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to re-assess the petitioner�s answer
book in Digital Image Processing having Subject Code EC 1009 of the year 2009-2010 and declare that the petitioner has passed the above
subject.
2. (i) It is the case of the petitioner that he is a student of Meenakshi College of Engineering at K.K. Nagar, Chennai. He has joined the College in
the academic year 2006-2007. As he had secured 456 marks out of 500 marks in the Plus Two examinations with 86% he claimed that he is a
bright student. He had written seven semester examinations as an Under-graduate in Bachelor of Engineering in the Faculty of Electronic and
Communication Engineering. He passed all the six semester examinations with good marks in all the subjects and secured 80% aggregate. The
seventh semester examination was held in November-December 2009. In the 7th semester examination he wrote eight papers. In other papers he
secured 69% in EC1403, 100% in EC1405, 67% in EC1402, 70% in EC 1401, 99% in EC1404, 67% in MG1401 and 59% in EC1011. In EC
1009 he was declared as failed and the marks secured by him is said to be 46% made up of 19 plus 27 in the internal and external marks
respectively. He had applied for revaluation and received a communication dated nil stating that his marks has increased to 49%, that is 3 marks
more than what he secured earlier. But, in the result there was no change and he was declared as having failed in Digital Image Processing.
(ii) It is the case of the petitioner that he was awarded lesser marks and therefore he applied for a review of his answer book once again. He
handed over the answer book to one Ms. Usha Bhanu, N. Assistant Professor, E.C.E. Department of his College and she evaluated the paper and
awarded 68%, based on which the petitioner claims that if the review was done correctly, he would have been given more marks and therefore
there is a need for reassessment of answer scripts.
(iii) According to the petitioner, in Part A questions, four answers were left unevaluated and he was awarded only zero marks. In regard to Part B
which carries questions of 16 marks each, he had written five questions. The marks awarded by the examiner is 4, 6, 8, 3, 3 totalling 24 marks
while the reviewing staff has awarded 54 marks. As regards Part A the reviewing staff has awarded 14 marks, while the examiner awarded 10
marks. The total marks awarded by the examiner is 34 out of 100 which was moderated to 80 and he was awarded 27 which later on increased
to 30 on revaluation. As regards the 68% awarded by the reviewing staff for 100, if moderated it would come to 54 and if the internal marks of 19
is added, it will come to 73 in which case he should have been declared as passed in the subject Digital Image Processing and therefore, the
petitioner prays for the reassessment of the answer books in this petition.
3.(i) The respondent has filed counter and it is stated that the petitioner is a student of B.E. (ECE) Course in Meenakshi College of Engineering
and he wrote the seventh semester examinations in November-December 2009, secured 19/20 internal marks and 34/100 external marks, when
converted to 80 it would come to 27/80 in the subject Digital Image Processing with the subject Code of EC 1009. Thereafter, he applied for
revaluation of the said subject. On revaluation, he was awarded 37/100 external marks when converted to 80, it would come to 30/80. Passing
minimum marks are 36/80 and in End Semester Examination and 50/100 put together (end semester exam and internal assessment). Since the
student has not got 36/80, he is declared to have failed.
(ii) The Syndicate of the University by its resolution dated 15.4.2009 has provided for review of answer scripts after revaluation if it is supported
by recommendation of faculty of College along with break up of marks of each question. The petitioner has applied for review of his revaluation.
The review of answer script of the petitioner after revaluation was done jointly by two examiners and the petitioner was awarded 38/100 external
marks (when converted to 80 would come to 30/80 external marks). The same was also communicated to the petitioner. However, the petitioner
by relying on the marks awarded by the Lecturer, has filed the present writ petition seeking reassessment of his answer script. It is stand of the
respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to seek revaluation when the University regulations do not provide for further revaluation. The claim of
the petitioner to award the marks as per the valuation of his teacher is not sustainable when the answer script of petitioner was referred to review
by two independent examiners jointly on the recommendation of his class teacher. There is no negligence on the part of the examiner in valuing the
paper and there is no mistake and oversight while his answer paper is valued. Therefore, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. On the above pleadings I have heard Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mani Sundar Gopal, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent Anna University.
5. It is the foremost contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in all the six semesters the petitioner had secured higher marks and he
had done the seventh semester examinations also and in one of the papers, he was declared failed and therefore, revaluation was sought for and
the review has been done by the respondents with the examiners appointed by them. Therefore, the petitioner sought for re-assessment of the
answer sheet based on his own lecturer''s assessment. Further, the learned Counsel submits that both in the revaluation as well as review he has not
secured the required marks for passing and therefore reassessment is required to be made.
6.(i) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent Anna University submits that as per the University regulations, the revaluation of
the subject in question has been done by the independent examiners and thereafter, the review sought for by the petitioner also has been conducted
and in both the cases the petitioner has not come out successfully and the marks awarded was lesser than the marks for passing the examination.
The learned Counsel for the respondents would further contend that as per the the University Regulations there is no provision for reassessment of
the answer scripts.
(ii) The learned Counsel for the respondent University relied on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v.
Chairman Bihar Public Service Commission Patna and Ors. 2005 (1) LW 131. The relevant para in the said decision is extracted hereunder:
...There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of
answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This
question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Vs.
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, . In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to
that effect by a candidate.
7. On a scrutiny of the entire materials and on perusal of the documents annexed in the papers it is the admitted fact that the petitioner has
successfully gone through all the six semester examinations. He has applied for the seventh semester and did his examination in all the eight papers.
He passed all the papers except one subject, namely, Digital Image Processing with Subject Code No. EC 1009 and he secured 19/20 internal
marks and 34/100 external marks. When it is converted to 80, it comes to 27/80 in the Digital Image Processing and therefore, the petitioner has
not passed the examination. Thereafter, he applied for revaluation and in the revaluation he secured 37/100. When it is converted to 80, it would
come to 30/80 external marks. Since passing of minimum marks required is 36/80, as the petitioner has secured only 30/80, he was declared
''failed'' and thereafter, he applied for review, in which, the petitioner has secured only 30/80, which is also less than the marks required for passing
the examination.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has applied for review and it was considered by the respondent. Though the petitioner claims that because
the lecturer of his college has assessed his answer book and he expected higher marks in the assessment of the petitioner, it cannot be a ground for
asking higher marks from the independent examiners of the University who assessed the papers, revalued and done the review. In the absence of
any provision for reassessment of the answer script under the regulations of the University, it is not possible for this Court to order for such
reassessment as the petitioner has the opportunity of revaluation as well as review. In both the processes, he has not secured the required marks
for passing the examination. In such view of the matter, the relief sought for in this petition cannot be granted.
9. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1/2010 is also dismissed.
