Delhi High Court: Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court seeking a direction to respondents to evaluate his answer sheets for supplementary examination undertaken by him in the Competition Law Paper (‘paper’) with Subject Code LB-4033 held on 31-5-2023. C. Hari Shankar, J.*, opined that petitioner’s handwriting, was not so unreadable that it was incapable of evaluation on merits. Thus, the Court disposed permitted petitioner to provide a typed transcript of his answer sheet to the University and directed the examiner to evaluate petitioner’s answer sheet based on the typed transcript, provided she or he, was satisfied that the transcript corresponded exactly to the handwritten answer sheet.
The paper belonged to the fourth semester of the LLB course undertaken by petitioner in the Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. Petitioner submitted that in his answer sheet, on the cover page, the Examiner had entered the comment “very poor handwriting, hardly could ready anything” and in the answer sheet, the Examiner had circled and underlined certain sentences which she/he was unable to read.
The Court opined that respondents’ submission that the examiner had provided marks against the answers given by petitioner, did not harmonize with the examiner’s comment that he could hardly read anything written by petitioner. The Court opined that if the examiner could hardly read anything, it was obvious that the marks awarded by him did not represent the actual marks which the candidate would be entitled to based on the answers given by him.
The Court observed that in the present case, petitioner was seeking ‘evaluation’ and not ‘re-valuation’ of his answer sheet. The Court opined that the manner in which petitioner’s answer sheet was evaluated by the examiner could not be regarded as a proper evaluation at all, as the examiner himself stated that he could hardly read the handwriting of petitioner. An evaluation of an answer sheet which the evaluator/examiner was unable to read, could not be treated in law as evaluation at all. Therefore, there was no question of re-evaluation.
The Court opined that “student, who undertakes an examination was entitled, as a matter of right, to have his paper evaluated. It was not so that if the student’s handwriting was so unintelligible that no one could read it, the student could nonetheless approach the Court, and state that his paper had not been evaluated properly. It was the duty of the student to at least write intelligibly. Examiners could not be asked to evaluate handwritings which were completely unintelligible, and if a student writes his answer in such a fashion, he could not come to Court seeking relief”.
The Court opined that in the present case, petitioner’s handwriting, was not so unreadable that it was incapable of evaluation on merits. The Court noted that the circled and underlined words on the answer sheet were intelligible as, “or more”, “people have to”, “acquisition”, “to get their approval”, “range”, “they have to get the approval from Competition Commission of India for their merger and acquisition with each other”, “regulatory”, “checks”, “enterprises”, “competition”. Thus, the Court opined that all the words which the examiner could not read were intelligible.
The Court opined that “the examiners who examine answer sheets had an arduous task before them, especially in institutions of higher education. It was also the duty of students to ensure that their answers were properly readable. If the handwriting of a candidate was very poor, an individual examiner might be excused if she/he so observe, on the answer sheet. At the same time, if the handwriting was at all intelligible, the student was entitled to be marked for the answer. The examination system did not permit students being penalized for having poor handwriting”.
The Court relied on Ishaan Kumar v. University of Delhi, W.P.(C) 15330 of 2023, wherein this Court allowed to submit a typed transcript of answer sheet to the examiner and requested the examiner to evaluate the answer sheet based on the typed transcript and liberty was reserved with examiner to satisfy herself or himself, that the typed transcript corresponded to the handwritten answer-sheet.
Thus, the Court disposed of the writ petition and permitted petitioner to provide a typed transcript of his answer sheet to the University and directed that the typed transcript should be placed before the examiner who initially checked petitioner’s Competition Law paper. The Court also directed the examiner to evaluate petitioner’s answer sheet based on the typed transcript, provided the examiner was satisfied that the transcript corresponded exactly to the handwritten answer sheet.
[Madhav Chaudhary v. University of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2214, decided on 22-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Rohan Taneja, Prerna Bhardwaj, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Hardik Rupal, Advocates
