JUDGMENT
P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. Heard.
2. The instant appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is brought before the Court by a student who has appeared in B.F. A. Xth Semester examination and has been declared unsuccessful by the respondent- University as she has been awarded ‘Zero’ marks in the external paper (work) in ‘Composition’. Her petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has failed before this Court as learned single Judge has found by comparison with the work of the other students as follows:
“Now, the only question to be decided by this Court is whether the 4th respondent herein is justified in awarding ‘Zero’ marks to the petitioner in ‘Composition’ subject i.e., painting. The question paper gave several options to the pupils to depict a painting including summer or winter season under Item No. 3. The petitioner was summoned to the Court on 1-9-1995 and she identified the painting drawn by her in the open Court. She stated that she has depicted summer season. A look at the picture drawn by the petitioner will reveal that by any means the petitioner has not depicted summer season. Except depicting a male and female in colour in a love making posture, there is no reference at all to any of the basic features of a summer season in that painting. On being questioned, the petitioner says that depiction of male without a shirt and colour pattern indicates summer. But to the naked eye, neither head nor tail of a summer could be made out in the portrait. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a lay man may not be able to see summer in the said painting and only experts will be able to identify the features. Stating so, the learned counsel requested that the portriat may be sent to another expert to meet the ends of justice. Though I am not convinced of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, with a view to dispel the doubts in his mind on the portrait, I summoned some of the paintings wherein summer was depicted by other students who sat for the examination along with the petitioner. On a comparison of these paintings with that of the petitioner, I am of the view that the painting need not be sent to another external examiner as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner as I am thoroughly satisfied that the basic feature like sunshine, fatigue or sweating of the human beings depicted in the portrait drawn by the petitioner are not at all there. Secondly, it is not the case of the petitioner that she is an expert in the subject and the hidden inferences to hold the view that the painting is summer cannot be noticed by a lay man. The petitioner is only at the threshold of learning painting. On being questioned, except stating the above two reasons, she could not give any other reason in support of her contention. These two features cannot lead to the conclusion that the painting is summer. Nextly, the scope of Judicial review being very limited, the Court can neither make a roaming inquiry to find out the hidden intentions of the petitioner nor act as an appellate authority. Unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the view of the expert is demonstrably wrong or vitiated by extraneous consideration, this Court will not interfere with the reasoning of the examiner who is an expert in the subject.”
3. In course of the hearing of the writ petition, however, before the learned single Judge, allegations as to mala fides against respondents 2 to 5 were withdrawn and the cause was limited to the extent-whether awarding ‘Zero’ marks to a student, who otherwise has secured 95% marks in the same subject of Arts, by the external examiner for her composition ‘summer season’ is reasonable and legal. Before us as well as before the learned single Judge, the pleadings for appreciation have been stated, which are as follows:
“I submit that the said Lecturer as well as the second respondent who are close to each other gained an impression that I was the person instrumental in exposing this scandal. They tried their level best to cause maximum harm to me ….They prevailed upon the third respondent who is in-charge of selecting the examiners to choose a playable person who will act to their dictates in spoiling my career………..In as much as I secured 95% in internal assessment in the same subject. To my utter dismay and frustration, I was informed that the fourth respondent awarded me ‘Zero’ for may painting. The effect was only to see that I am failed in the course and to prevent my admission into P.G. Courses. All this is on account of the concerted efforts made by the respondents 2,3,4 and 5………………..The second respondent has resorted to such a level that he instructed all the concerned in the office of the Controller of Examinations not to furnish a copy of the Memo to me………………A civilised society cannot digest or permit such activities………Though there is a provision for revaluation, I did not make application to the concerned respondents because die respondents 2 and 3 might have already chosen and kept him in reserve for repeating the same performance. The acts of the concerned respondents deserves the maximum condemnation in the interests of maintaining the dignity and integrity of Educational Institution.”
4. Courts have invariably kept themselves aloof and not chosen to enter into the affairs of the public examinations and prefer leaving assessment of the standard of the students by the examiners who are generally chosen from the group of teachers and others who know the subject concerned. Although allegations of mala fide have been withdrawn, the traces thereof have remained and they were/are allowed without clearing that something had/has gone wrong with the assessment of the merit of the petitioner/appellant in the examination. As learned single Judge desired to satisfy his curiosity, we thought the best course in such a situation was to get the composition examined by another examiner, who is expert in the subject and we left the choice of the examiner for the Vice Chancellor of the University i.e., second respondent before us. The examiner appointed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University has allotted for the same composition to the petitioner-appellant 32 marks out of 60 maximum marks by dividing the painting for valuation into four i.e., (1) Relevance of Topic; (2) Composition and Drawing; (3) Colour Scheme and aesthetics; and (4) Final effect, of 10,20,20 and 10 marks each i.e., total 60. One can feel shocked to see how a person who deserves 32 marks out of 60 for the composition (painting) was awarded ‘Zero’ marks by the external examiner who had earlier examined the paper and we desired thus mat the Court should be informed of the objective standard of evaluation of the answer papers of the students in painting and how the external examiner could find the painting worth a knot when the examiner later appointed by the Vice Chancellor of the University has awarded 32 marks for the same work. Before us, however, the external examiner has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit He has brought on the record the fact that there is a tussle going on between the writ petitioner-appellant and the fifth respondent herein, who is a teacher in the College in which she is studying and, “I am no-where connected or concerned with the said dispute. I am a retired Professor in painting who had also worked as Head of the Department of Painting and Vice-Principal of the respondent-College. I have retired from service in the year 1984 and I have no connection with the respondent-College in which the writ petitioner studied. Now, I am a free-lance Artist and my experience is being used by the respondent-University by appointing me as External Examiner. I am in the panel of External Examiners for painting and I have been entrusted this work several times.” He has stated that the assessment and awarding of marks are relative and they may differ from person to person and that in his assessment, with his vast experience, he had not seen an iota of relevancy in the painting by the petitioner-appellant with the topic or the subject and, “my conscious did not permit me to award any marks to the said work.” After the re-valuation of the composition of the petitioner – appellant the University has conceded that the petitioner – appellant has to be awarded the marks not ‘Zero’ but ’32’. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, however, has contended – (1) Regulations of the University do not permit re-valuation; (2) the vast experience and the type of specialization the fourth respondent possessed cannot be equated with that of the examiner appointed by the second respondent on being directed by the Court, who, “is not in the panel of Examiners” and “the re-valuator Mr…………..was only a Drawing Teacher who was teaching at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Golkonda. He is not a graduate of Fine Arts – Painting.”
5. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent has stoutly defended ‘Zero’ marks allotted to the petitioner – appellant and vehemently opposed any allegation of mala fide either of in fact or in law against him i.e., fourth respondent.
6. As we have said earlier, when experts examine the answer books of the students and award marks, Courts do not interfere. Courts also do not recommend any violation of the regulations of the University and other public authorities who conduct examinations and when regulations/rules do not provide for re-valuation, give no orders for such re-valuation. The Court, in the instant case, also has exercised the said refrain and has not directed for revaluation of the answer book of the petitioner-appellant All that the Court wanted to ascertain was whether there was genuine valuation of the answer of the petitioner – appellant to the question i.e., the painting by her. The exercise of seeking assessment of the merit of the petitioner – appellant by some-one other than the fourth respondent has revealed that she deserves not ‘Zero’ but ’32’ marks. It is thus not a case of re-valuation of the answer book of a student, but a case of assessment of merit which apparently was not done by fourth respondent at all. We see no justification in the assertions of the fourth respondent before this Court that his vast experience and expertise prompted him to award ‘Zero’ marks for the painting by the petitioner – appellant. No examiner, particularly, appointed by a Body like respondent – University is expected to go by his subjective satisfaction or appreciation which is either below the standard or above the standard. The evaluation of merit of a student has to be done by the standard of the students in general and the curriculum for the class or the standard of the examination. No two examiners thus can apply two different standards and evaluate answers of the students in accordance with their own set standards. They have to evaluate the answer given by the students with such objectivity and clarity that no one develops any doubt about the correctness of the assessment. We have, in the instant case, no quarrel with any sense of superiority of the fourth respondent as an artist or a painter or even as a distinguished teacher as the case before us is concerned with the valuation of the merit of the petitioner – appellant only. Sometimes acting innocently and even honestly, people do act unjustly and we cannot, on the facts of the instant case, rule out such unjust act oh the part of the fourth respondent inflicting serious injury to the petitioner-appellant. We do not, for the said reason, feel persuaded to go any further into the issue of mala fides or even the issue whether there has been any deliberate act involving the fourth and fifth respondents in some sort of collusion or even any of them having any dishonest intentions to harm the interests of the petitioner-appellant. We note, however, with regret, the loss which the petitioner-appellant has suffered, may be she has been a victim of circumstances. Since we have found that the petitioner – appellant has been wrongly assessed for ‘Zero’ marks and thus has wrongly been declared to be failed, the respondent University is required to declare her result and accordingly permit her to pursue her higher studies. We are informed, however, that the academic year to which her co-successful students were admitted for Post-graduate education has come to the end, she by now thus has lost one academic year. The University shall be well advised to see that no further injury is inflicted upon her by such careless acts in appointing the examiners and not providing proper guidelines for evaluation of the answer paper
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The respondents are directed to publish the petitioner – appellant’s result with 32 marks in composition (painting) in the Xth Semester of Bachelor of Fine Arts Course (Painting course). The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 1,500/-