Punjab and Haryana High Court refuses to interfere in marks given by examiners

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 25

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that courts cannot interfere in the matter of marks given by the examiners. If the courts were to intervene on the ground that the marks given by the different examiners evaluating the same paper were varied, it would be incumbent for the court to order revaluation in a large number of cases in spite of a bar on the same.

Plea filed by doctor

Justice Vikas Bahl was hearing a petition filed by a doctor for directions to the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and another respondent to revaluate the theory papers of Masters of Dental Surgery (Prosthodontics) held in May/June 2020.

The assertion by Justice Vikas Bahl came in a case the answer books of the candidates were evaluated by four examiners, including two internal, and the average of marks given by them were taken into consideration.

Justice Bahl was hearing a petition filed by a doctor for directions to the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and another respondent to revaluate the theory papers of Masters of Dental Surgery (Prosthodontics) held in May/June 2020. Directions were also sought for revising his result.

Appearing before Justice Bahl’s Bench, the varsity’s counsel submitted that a clause in the “Calendar” prohibited the revaluation of answer books. It was specifically mentioned that revaluation would not be admissible in any examination of any faculty.

It was also contended that a writ petition seeking revaluation could not be entertained once there was a specific bar. Besides this, the clause had not even been challenged. It was further contended that the relevant rules and regulations relied upon by the petitioner showed that average of marks given by the external and internal examiners were to be taken into consideration for declaring the result. The regulation was framed as the authorities were well aware that there could be variance in the marks by various examiners.

Justice Bahl added the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that revaluation could only be ordered in a situation where the rule or regulation governing the examination permitted the same. The courts were not justified in ordering revaluation in the absence of any regulation for revaluation. It was further held that sympathy or compassion did not play any role in the matter of directing, or not directing, revaluation of the answer sheets.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Bahl observed: “It is not the case of the petitioner that the regulations have been violated. It is apparent that the regulations have been framed since the authorities were aware that different marks could be given by different examiners while checking the same paper as some examiners may be liberal whereas other examiners may not be so liberal and thus, it was thought appropriate that average of the marks given by the examiners be taken into consideration before declaring the result.”