Gujarat High Court: In an appeal filed by an examiner of the Pandit Deendayala Energy University (‘the University’) against the order of the Single Judge rejecting the writ petition contending that the University had manipulated exam results, the Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal, CJ.*, and Pranav Trivedi, J., dismissed the appeal by upholding the impugned order stating that the examiner had no locus to assail the result declared by the University. The Court also stated that filing of the writ petition more than a year after the declaration of results was nothing but sheer abuse of the Court process and imposed a cost of Rs 50,00 to be paid by the examiner within three weeks to the High Court Legal Services Committee for the cause of the orphan students pursuing higher studies.
Background
The examiner, a course coordinator, and an evaluator had examined answer sheets of an end-semester examination conducted by the University. When the results were declared, he discovered that out of the 98 students who had failed the subject as per his evaluation, 30 students were assigned marks and passed by the University.
Aggrieved, the examiner sent a letter to the University Grants Commission (‘UGC’). Concerning the letter received from the UGC, the Registrar of the University (‘the Registrar’) responded that there was no question of manipulation of the result, rather to ensure that the students were not harmed unnecessarily, a system of moderation of marks was followed. In this case, moderation was done, and after due diligence, 30 students were passed. The Registrar explained that the moderation process was in order and completely legal and ethical.
Soon after the result declaration, the Director of the School of Liberal Students (‘SLS’), sent a letter to the examiner herein asking for an explanation regarding complaints raised by students regarding the question paper and evaluation made by him. The letter further indicated that the examiner had remained non-cooperative with and unapproachable by officials who were trying to contact him to solve students’ concerns. He was also asked to explain various issues, such as why he did not keep the Controller of Examination office informed about the two sets of question papers submitted by him, why the methodology of question paper mapping was not adhered to, and why marks were not given for correct steps. There were also allegations of disparity in the results of mid-semester and end-semester examinations and allegations of insubordination of the School Director.
Another cautionary letter was issued to the examiner regarding the examination in question herein, stating that he had failed to observe the academic, administrative, and behavioural norms, and he was warned to refrain from any such activity.
Claiming that his grievances were not heard, the examiner filed a writ petition contending that the University had manipulated the results to preserve its reputation. The Single Judge rejected the petition, holding that the appellant, being a paper setter as well as evaluator, had a limited role and no locus to seek any relief in this regard.
Aggrieved, the examiner filed the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision
Regarding how the examiner had access to the evaluation sheet, the Court noted that the examiner had no proper answer. The Court rejected the contention that the evaluation sheet was with the examiner as it was sent via email to the University, as per the procedure. The Court added that the appellant, being the examiner, could not have access to the evaluation sheet after the evaluation was completed by him as it was a confidential document that had to be kept in the custody of the Examination Committee or any other competent authority of the University. Thus, the Court held that the evaluation sheet could not be relied upon by the examiner.
The Court noted that the examiner had raised a grievance with the Registrar however since the examiner did not raise a grievance before the Executive Council of the University, which was the apex body, the grievance could not be said to have been raised before the competent authority.
Noting the concerns of the students, warnings issued by the University, and reply of the Registrar, the Court stated that it was evident that the examiner herein, who was merely the course coordinator and examiner, could not have any grievances for the methodology adopted by the University for the moderation of the marks allocated by him as an examiner.
The Court noted that the letter issued by the Director (SLS) clearly showed that the examiner did not adopt the proper methodology for setting and moderating the papers. Additionally, the answer key was not vetted by the Head of the Department (‘HOD’). The Court further noted that the letter of the Registrar indicated that the examiner had adopted erratic marking criteria across mid and end-semester exams, violative of the usual practice.
The Court also noted the incident of insubordination of the Director (SLS) and the lack of proactive review by him, as a course coordinator, about the poor academic performance of the majority of the students. The examiner was also found guilty of not keeping the Director/Dean/HOD or the Controller of Examination informed about the two sets of question papers with varying difficulty levels submitted by him for the same examination.
The Court stated that for these acts, the examiner could not seek issuance of a direction to the University that it had acted illegally in declaring the moderated results of 30 students, who were given marks erratically by him. The Court added that the appellant, being an examiner, was required to keep his hands off once the evaluation sheet was submitted by him and was not required to indulge in any head-on-collision with the University.
The Court remarked that evidently, filing of the writ petition after more than one year of the declaration of result was nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. Additionally, the examiner was unfair in not presenting the correct and complete facts before the Single Judge.
Thus, the Court held that there was no infirmity in the impugned order and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the examiner for approaching the Court without any locus to assail the result declared by the University.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with the direction that the cost shall be deposited within three weeks to the High Court Legal Services Committee for the cause of the orphan students pursuing higher studies.
[Chaitanya Vyas v. Pandit Deendayala Energy University, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 196 of 2025, decided on 30-01-2025]
*Order authored by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: Sandip H Munjyasara