Full Judgment Text
[1]
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4911/2013
Date of Decision: 04.08.2023
IN THE MATTERS OF:
MS. SUREKHA
D/O SHRI SURESH KUMAR,
M-16, INDRAPRASTHA MARG,
SONEPAT ROAD, ROHTAK,
HARYANA ..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Mr.Alok Kumar,
Ms.Rachna Dalal and Ms.Sweta
Kadyan, Advocates.
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,
NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TESTING (NET) BUREAU,
BENITO JUAREZ MARG,
NEW DELHI-110021 .... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Arjun Harkauli and Ms.Muskaan
Gupta, Advocates.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, vide the instant writ petition seeks for the following
reliefs:-
“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction thereby directing the respondent to award earlier
marks obtained by the petitioner in Paper 3 as was so tabulated
and is clear from the tabulation and declare the petitioner as
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Digitally Signed By:NEHA
CHOPRA
Signing Date:07.08.2023
17:41:26
[2]
having passed as all the persons who have obtained 90 and above
marks have been declared successful;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction thereby directing the respondent to hold an enquiry as
to the circumstances in which the paper 3 of the petitioner was
misplaced and evaluated later on to cause harm to the petitioner;
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction thereby directing the respondent to hold an enquiry as
to the circumstances in which paper 3 was again evaluated and
marks were lowered down;
(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction thereby directing the respondent to inform the Hon'ble
Court as to the power under which the respondent can indulge in
the act of evaluating again and again and whether there is any
such provisions under the Act and Rules for permitting them to do
so;
(v) award costs of the present writ petition in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondent.”
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in
the instant case, a grave injustice has occurred to the petitioner. According to
him, the respondent- University Grants Commission (hereinafter as to
‘UGC’) deliberately misplaced the answer script of the petitioner and
evaluated the same much after the declaration of the result of other
candidates.
3. He, therefore, submits that in the instant case, the marks which were
awarded to the petitioner originally were lowered down. He has pointed out
various discrepancies from the answer script of Paper-III. According to him,
the original marks awarded to the petitioner were 99 which were reduced to
88 and later on the same were further reduced to 78. He has also shown
various overwriting in the OMR sheet.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Digitally Signed By:NEHA
CHOPRA
Signing Date:07.08.2023
17:41:26
[3]
4. According to him, in the concerned year in which the petitioner
appeared, the candidates from General Category who obtained less marks
than the petitioner were considered eligible for lectureship. He, therefore,
submits that had the answer script of the petitioner been appropriately
evaluated, the petitioner would have been given the correct marks and
eventually, the petitioner would have secured admission in the concerned
course.
5. He, therefore, submits that the instant case is a clear case of various
anomalies and discrepancies which requires appropriate directions to be
issued not only against the respondent-UGC but also to award compensation
in favour of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-UGC
vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. While
taking this court through the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-UGC submits that the
petitioner did not circle the required column of the OMR sheet to indicate
her correct roll number.
7. He, therefore, submits that in the absence of the roll number being
correctly marked in the petitioner’s answer script, her marks were not
awarded against the roll number. Therefore, the petitioner was treated as
absent.
8. He further submits that since the petitioner circled a different roll
number, therefore, the marks were awarded against the circled roll number.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Digitally Signed By:NEHA
CHOPRA
Signing Date:07.08.2023
17:41:26
[4]
Learned counsel for the respondent-UGC also submits that the circled roll
number candidate incidentally remained absent on the date of examination.
9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
10. The facts of the case would show that in the year 2011 the petitioner
appeared in NET Examination for the post of lectureship, conducted by the
respondent-UGC, which consist of three papers. There is no dispute with
respect to the appearance of the petitioner against Paper-I and Paper-II.
11. The result of the said examination was declared on 08.12.2011. The
mark sheets for Paper-III were uploaded on the official website on
18.12.2011 and it was found that the petitioner was awarded Code-999. The
Code-999 denotes that the person concerned is absent. Meaning thereby, the
candidate concerned has not appeared in the examination.
12. The petitioner while observing the same was taken aback. The
petitioner, thereafter, made various applications and representations and on
22.03.2012, after evaluation 78 marks were awarded to her against Paper-III.
13. A perusal of the answer script placed on record by the petitioner would
indicate that against question no.2 (a) of the Computer Science subject, there
appears be an overwriting and scoring out figure 10 and 7 and instead 4
marks were awarded.
14. Similarly, with respect to answer no.2(b), there is an overwriting in
awarding of marks, the overwriting marks would indicate that there are two
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Digitally Signed By:NEHA
CHOPRA
Signing Date:07.08.2023
17:41:26
[5]
marks against the said answer i.e. 10 and 7. Finally, none of those figures
were accepted and no marks were awarded.
15. It is also seen that against question no.16, there is an overwriting in
awarding of marks . There appears to be three figures; first is 3, second is 4
and finally 3 marks were awarded . Similarly, with respect to question no.19,
there are two figures i.e. 5 and 2 of which 5 is score out, and finally 2 marks
were awarded.
16. The stand taken by the respondent-UGC would show that Paper-III,
which was of 200 marks and the qualifying marks for Paper-III for General
Category were 100 marks.
17. Learned counsel therefore, submits that in any case, even if the higher
figure i.e. of 99 marks is accepted, in that case also, the petitioner would not
qualify. He, therefore, explains that the answer scripts are evaluated and
examined by the experts. He submits that against each answer, the figure
which remains undisputed and visible has been accepted to be the correct
figure.
18. According to him, there is no reason to award marks based on the
figure which is score out. He also explains that the petitioner was allotted roll
number 72870183 and she was required to dark the circles provided for the
purpose, in the OMR sheet besides filling of the other entries.
19. He explains in paragraph no.6 of the counter affidavit that the
petitioner darkened her roll number as 72870083 whereas her actual roll
number was 72870183. He then explains that the roll number which was
darkened by the petitioner was allotted to one Ms. Priyanka.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Digitally Signed By:NEHA
CHOPRA
Signing Date:07.08.2023
17:41:26
[6]
20. According to the averments made in the said counter affidavit, as per
the attendance sheet Ms. Priyanka was incidentally absent in the said
examination and on account of the wrong circle darkened by the petitioner,
the marks were awarded against her roll number.
21. It is, therefore, seen that on submitting the representation by the
petitioner, the staff of NET Bureau searched for the OMR sheet of the
petitioner out of two lakh OMR sheets and after ascertaining the eligibility in
Paper-I and Paper-II of the petitioner, copy of Paper-III was evaluated by a
team of experts on 22/03/2013 and accordingly, the marks were awarded.
22. Paragraph nos.6 to 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent-UGC are reproduced as under:-
“ [6]. That so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that the
Petitioner was allotted Roll No.72870183. Since Paper - I and Paper -
II were of objective nature, the candidates were provided Optical Mark
Reader (OMR) Sheet along with the Test Booklet. In the OMR Sheet, the
candidates were required to indicate their Roll number by darkening
the circles provided for the purpose, besides filling up other entries. It
is submitted that the petitioner darkened her Roll number as 72870083
whereas her Roll number was 72870183. The Roll number darkened by
the petitioner was allotted to one Ms. Priyanka.
[7]. That since Papar-I and Paper-II were of objective nature, the
same were evaluated by the computer. Since the petitioner darkened her
Roll number wrongly, the marks secured by her were shown against
Roll No. 72870083 (Ms. Priyanka) who incidentally was absent in the
said examination. A copy of the attendance sheet and mark statement in
respect of Ms. Priyanka is given as ANNEXURE R-2 (COLLY).
[8]. That it is submitted that the candidates were required to fill up the
entries correctly in the OMR Sheet. The evaluation of OMR Sheets is
done by computers and the entries on each OMR sheets are not checked
manually. In the NET Examination held in June, 2011, more than two
lakh candidates appeared. Thus, it is evident that it was a mistake on
the part of the petitioner who did not indicate the correct roll number
by darkening the circles in her OMR sheet as per procedure laid down
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Digitally Signed By:NEHA
CHOPRA
Signing Date:07.08.2023
17:41:26
[7]
by the UGC. Hence, the marks of the petitioner were shown against the
roll number indicated by her while against the actual roll number
allotted to the petitioner, the computer shown her as absent. Due to the
rd
above reason, the 3 paper of the petitioner was not evaluated before
declaration of result.
[9]. That it is further submitted that every candidate was required to
give the following undertaking in the OMR Sheet for Paper - I and
Paper - II:
“I hereby undertake that the information provided by me
for my eligibility for Examination is true to the best of my
knowledge. In case of any information found to be
incorrect/incomplete at any stage, I am liable for
disqualification for Examination and legal action."
The above undertaking was also given by the petitioner on the
OMR Sheet for Paper-I d& Paper-II, a copy of which has already been
annexed by the petitioner herself at page -44 of the writ petition. In
view of the aforesaid undertaking given by the petitioner herself, the
UGC cannot be set to be under any legal obligation to get the copy of
Paper – III evaluated, once the result has already been declared.
However, it is submitted that once the error of the petitioner was
brought to the notice of UGC, the staff of NET Bureau painstakingly
searched the OMR Sheet of the petitioner out of 2 lakh OMRs in the
interest of the petitioner. After ascertaining the eligibility in Paper-I
and Paper-II, copy of the Paper-III was got evaluated by a team of
experts on 22.03.2013.”
23. In paragraph no.11 of the counter affidavit, the respondent-UGC
submits that the final marks obtained by the petitioner are less than the
minimum qualifying marks. Paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit of the
respondent-UGC is reproduced as under:-
“[11]. That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner
applied under General Category and the marks secured by her
are given below:-
Paper-I: 64
Paper-II: 40
Paper-III: 78
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Digitally Signed By:NEHA
CHOPRA
Signing Date:07.08.2023
17:41:26
[8]
Further, the minimum qualifying marks required for General
Category candidate is given in the following table:
Category Minimum Qualifying Marks
Paper-I Paper-II Paper-I + Paper-II Paper-III
GENERAL 40 40 100 (50%) 90 (45%)
It may be seen from the above that the petitioner failed to
qualify the said examination.”
24. It is, thus seen, that the main discrepancy which has arisen is on
account of the non-circle of a correct roll number. As a matter of fact, once
the wrong roll number was circled, it was not incumbent upon the
respondent-UGC to have searched for the answer script or to have examined
all the OMR sheets to find out the answer script of the petitioner. However,
the respondent-UGC in the interest of justice has undertaken the aforesaid
exercise. Therefore, prima facie no malafide can be attributed in the instant
case against the respondent-UGC.
25. However, there appear to be certain discrepancies in the manner in
which the marks have been underscored and awarded. It is to be noted that in
calculating the marks, the score out marks cannot be taken into
consideration. Unless an appropriate evidence is led in that respect, there
cannot be any finding as to which were the correct marks. As on date, the
marks considered by the respondent-UGC as final marks, are the only
undisputed marks.
26. Having perused the entire material available on record and in view of
the facts and situations obtained in the instant case, this court finds that the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Digitally Signed By:NEHA
CHOPRA
Signing Date:07.08.2023
17:41:26
[9]
main prayer made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, at this stage,
cannot be accepted.
27. Since the final mark sheet has already been awarded based on the
evaluation by the respondent-UGC, therefore, the same cannot be interfered
with. The petitioner can also not be considered to be eligible for lectureship
pursuant to the examination in which she appeared in the year 2011.
28. The marks awarded to the petitioner are less than the qualifying marks.
It is, thus seen, that there arises no question for the grant of any
compensation to the petitioner as well.
29. However, this court leaves it open for the petitioner to seek
appropriate remedy and in case, the petitioner succeeds that the discrepancies
in the evaluation of the answer script were deliberate and the petitioner was
entitled to different marks, a further relief would depend on the outcome of
the said recourse.
30. No further directions, at this stage, are called for.
31. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed
of.
32. Needless to state that this court has not dealt with the submissions
made by learned counsel appearing for the parties on merits.
33. All rights and contentions raised by them may be adjudicated in
appropriate proceedings.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
AUGUST 04, 2023
nc/rs
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Digitally Signed By:NEHA
CHOPRA
Signing Date:07.08.2023
17:41:26