Re-evaluation of marks by experts should be trusted: HC
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad high court recently held that in matters of re-evaluation of answer sheets of specialised subject of an academic course, re-evaluation of marks by experts should be trusted and a court cannot convert itself into an expert to sit over the judgment of the examiners, which is expressed in their award.
The court further held that successive re-evaluation cannot be permitted in absence of any rule permitting the same.
Justice JJ Munir passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by Vishva Vaibhav, a student of the Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course at the KD Dental College and Hospital, Mathura.
The petitioner’s plea was that he had performed very well in the academic curriculum. He appeared in the final professional examination, but was declared ‘failed’ in two papers. The petitioner wanted a re-evaluation of his marks obtained in each of these papers because he believed that his answer scripts were not properly evaluated.
The counsel appearing for the college argued, “Once re-evaluation was already done on the request of the petitioner, which resulted in no changes of marks. Hence, in the absence of any rule permitting successive re-evaluation, request of the petitioner could not be allowed.”
The court, after hearing the parties concerned, observed, “The counsel for the petitioner has not brought to this court’s attention any regulation that may permit a second re-evaluation. This matter relates to assessment of a paper relating to a specialized branch of medicine. This court neither has means to ascertain nor the requisite expertise to determine if the petitioner is right or the examiners are wrong.”
“In a situation like this, the examination authority is to be trusted for their conclusions. It would be unwise for this court to convert itself into an expert and set about the task of reopening an examiner’s award twice done,” observed Justice Munir while dismissing the petition.
THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT SUCCESSIVE RE-EVALUATION CANNOT BE PERMITTED IN ABSENCE OF ANY RULE PERMITTING THE SAME.