Role Limited To Setting Paper: Gujarat HC Rejects Examiner's Plea Alleging University Illegally Gave Marks To Failed Students, Fines ₹50K
The Gujarat High Court dismissed with Rs. 50,000 cost an examiner's appeal who had alleged that Pandit Deendayal Energy University (PDEU) “manipulated the results to preserve its reputation” by illegally assigning marks to 30 students who had actually failed as per his assessment, underscoring that the plea was “a sheer abuse of the process of the Court.”In doing so the court noted...
The Gujarat High Court dismissed with Rs. 50,000 cost an examiner's appeal who had alleged that Pandit Deendayal Energy University (PDEU) “manipulated the results to preserve its reputation” by illegally assigning marks to 30 students who had actually failed as per his assessment, underscoring that the plea was “a sheer abuse of the process of the Court.”
In doing so the court noted that the appellant who was merely the Course Coordinator and Examiner who had evaluated the answer-sheets of certain students for Business Research Method course, cannot have any grievances for the methodology adopted by the University for moderation of the marks allocated by him as an Examiner. It further observed that the appellant as an examiner was required to keep his hands off once the evaluation sheet was submitted by him and did not have to indulge in any "head-on-collision with the University authority".
At the outset the division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi in its order said that the appeal was "wholly misconceived" filed by an examiner who had evaluated certain answer-sheets of the Business Research Methods (BRM) examination conducted by PDEU.
The court noted that writ petition was filed before the single judge by appending the evaluation of marks of certain students at page '10' of the paper-book stating that as per the evaluation made by the appellant of the answer-sheet of end-semester examination conducted in May 2023, 98 students failed the subject, whereas five students remained absent.
The appellant claimed that in spite of the marks allocated by him as an evaluator, the University had illegally assigned marks to 30 students who had actually failed.
When the bench raised a pointed query to the counsel for the appellant as to how and in what manner he could have access to the evaluation sheet as being examiner since he cannot have the proper custody of the evaluation sheet, no answer was forthcoming.
"We may record that we cannot lay credence to the documents appended at Annexure 'A' to the Writ petition as it cannot be said to have been obtained from a proper source," the bench underscored. The appellant had challenged single judge's order which had dismissed his writ petition.
After observing the facts the bench said “All these issues reflected from the record are sufficient to form an opinion that the filing of the present petition in the month of September 2023, after about a period of more than one year of the declaration of result in the month of June 2023, is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. No infirmity can be attached to the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner being a paper setter as well as evaluator, his role is limited to set the paper and evaluate it and he has no locus to seek any relief in terms of the prayers made in the Writ petition and, therefore, the above noted judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help".
The bench further noted that the appeal was filed in January to agitate the issues as raised before the Writ court. The bench thereafter said, "For the facts noted hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been unfair in not bringing correct and complete facts before the learned Single Judge in the original Writ petition. For the act of the petitioner in approaching this Court without their being any locus to assail the result declared by the University by adopting the process of moderation, after about a period of one year two months, we find it fit to dismiss the appeal with the cost of Rs.50,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today.”
The court examined the records wherein, the examiner had raised grievance with the University through a letter and claimed that the university ignored the concerns and further examined about submission of the evaluation sheet and the date of declaration of the result.
Thereafter, it was stated that the evaluation sheet was submitted in May 2022 and the results were declared in June, 2023, that reflected that the appellant did not address the issues before the Apex Body of the University, the Executive Council.
Furthermore, the bench noted that the record showed that after the results in June 2023, complaints were filed against the examiner and an explanation was sought from him in July 2023. As per a letter (July 2023) from the Director, School of Liberal Students (SLS), students had raised grievances regarding the Business Research Methods course question paper and evaluation made by the appellant.
The letter indicated that the appellant was being uncooperative, failing to inform the authorities (Controller of Examination office, HOD, Dean or Director) on two sets of question papers submitted by him.
He was further questioned for not following the syllabus, failure to mark attendance and discrepancies in grading wherein students failed in end-semester exam but excelled in internal exam.
It was then noted by the Court that a cautionary letter in August 2023 was issued to the appellant regarding the concern of the students in Business Research Methods exam.
The bench noted that it seems that the appellant said nothing for a long time and then wrote to the UGC. When the UGC wrote a letter to PDEU, the University's Registrar said that no manipulation was done, rather in order to ensure that the students are not harmed unnecessarily, a Moderation Committee headed by the Director General of the University was empowered to moderate the marks. The University said that process of moderation is in order and completely legal and ethical.
The bench thus said, "The content of the letter dated 05.07.2023 issued by the Director (SLS) clearly shows that the petitioner did not adopt proper methodology for the purpose of setting of papers. The papers set-up by the petitioner were not moderated as they were not intimated to the concerned officer. The answer key was not vetted by the Head of the Department as there is no response to this aspect in the present petition. The content of the letter dated 07.08.2023 of the Registrar, University, as extracted hereianbove, clearly indicates that the petitioner had adopted erratic marking criteria across mid/internal and end-semester for students. The evaluation method has not been implemented as per normal practice by the petitioner. There is an incident of insubordination of the School Director and the lack of proactive review as a Course Coordinator about the poor academic performance by majority of the University students. The petitioner has been found guilty of not keeping the Director/Dean/HOD or the Controller of Examination informed for the two sets of question papers with varying level of difficulties, which was submitted in the office of the Controller of Examination for the examination scheduled on the same date and time".
In view of the acts alleged against the appellant the court said that he cannot seek the court's indulgence for a direction to the University that the latter had acted illegally in while declaring the results in moderation of 30 students.
"Apart from the above, in our considered opinion, the petitioner being an evaluator/examiner, was required to keep his hands off once the evaluation sheet was submitted by him and was not required to indulge in any kind of head-on-collision with the University authority,” the court noted.
The bench thus dismissed the appeal while imposing cost of Rs 50,000/- to be deposited by the appellant to the High Court Legal Services Committee for the cause of orphan students pursuing high studies.
Case Title: Chaitan Vyas vs Pandit Deendayal Energy University
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 32
