Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has directed Vice Chancellor and Controller of Examination, Kashmir University, to ensure students of LLM, who filed petition before it, are not “victimized”.
The direction by a single bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey while disposing of couple petitions filed by seven students of 3rd Semester Batch 2013 of LLM course, alleging “foul play” behind their result by the Kashmir university.
On perusal of the answer scripts, the students sensed what they called serious foul play behind their result as the cover page of the Xerox copy of the answer script did not contain the column or format of the 1st Re-evaluation that was printed on the front of the cover page of the University answer scripts.
“Instead, while making the Xerox copies, the cover pages of the answer scripts seemingly had been folded in a manner that this format/column of 1st Re-evaluation does not come in the Xerox copy. Not only that, lest the impression of the entries recorded in the 1st Re-evaluation column/format on the front side of the page becomes visible and is readable from the back of the page, the back of the page was photocopied after shielding the impression by putting a paper on it,” the petitioners said.
The students were awarded more than 20 marks in the 1st Re-evaluation by the examiner. Instead of proceeding ahead in accordance with the statutes, the petitioners alleged that the authorities “tampered re-evaluation and scribed marks on the margin over-leaf in each of these answer scripts, showing them to be awarded in 1st Re-evaluation.”
The Controller of Examinations, in his reply to the plea, stated that answer scripts were sent to Head of Department of Law for re-evaluation. Since the HoD was out of station, the parcel of answer scripts was handed over to a senior faculty member. When the answer scripts were received back, it was noticed that there were two re-evaluations, one on the front page of the answer scripts and the other on the back side of the same page, and that while as the re-evaluation on the front page showed 50 to 90% increase from the original evaluation, the re-evaluation on the back side of the first page was more or less in conformity with the original evaluation. The Examination Section took up the matter with the Head of the Department of the Law and they were informed that re-evaluation reflected on back side of the first page was the re-evaluation carried by Head of the Department
VC of the varsity, in exercise of powers vested in him, as Principal Executive and Academic Officer of the University, decided to discard the earlier re-evaluations and seek fresh re-evaluation “so that there remains no scope for either sheer populism or victimization”.
“It is now more than clear that re-evaluation undertaken by senior faculty member is simply an outlier. It is surprising to notice that while as in the evaluations undertaken by first evaluator, Head of the Department and outside evaluator all the candidates are shown as failed; in the evaluation undertaken by senior faculty member of the faculty, 5 out of 7 candidates are shown to have passed in first division. It speaks volumes about the genuineness of the evaluation undertaken by senior faculty member at his own level without taking Head of the Department into confidence,” the KU official said in reply.
After going through all the record, the court said that there are some very serious inconsistencies and contradictions in the case so built and put forth by the varsity.” The record also does not support them in such a stand. These inconsistencies and the record, plus the affidavit sworn in by the senior faculty member, taken together, lead one to the conclusions that, firstly, in fact, the answer scripts had been sent and delivered to the senior faculty member when neither the Head of the Department nor any other senior faculty member was available in the Department; secondly, he was an Examiner for the examination in question and, therefore, could not be said to be unauthorized to evaluate the same; and thirdly, the actual reason behind not relying on his evaluation was something else, which the respondents themselves in their affidavits have referred to as populism or victimization – populism by the senior faculty member and victimization by the present Head of the Department, as, according to the respondents, there is large variation between the original evaluation and the evaluation conducted by the senior faculty member.” The court said and enumerated factors relevant to it.
Ultimately, the court declared the controller examination’s action of sending the answer scripts for fresh re-evaluation to the Examiner outside the Department of Law and the re-evaluation done by such Examiner as illegal and inconsequential.
“The re-evaluation conducted by (senior faculty member) is found and held to be in order, conforming to the provisions and mandate of the relevant Statute. Consequently, the respondents are held to be bound to take it into consideration. Any note, endorsement or written text discarding the re-evaluation done by (the senior faculty member) or stating that this re-evaluation be not taken into account is declared unreasonable and inconsequential and, therefore, quashed.”
Before parting with the files, the court said that it cannot “lose sight of one more important fact discernable from the affidavit of Controller Examination.”
“It is repeatedly averred by him in his affidavit that the huge variation between re-evaluation done by the senior faculty member and the Head of the Department of law could be a case of sheer populism or victimization,” the court observed.
The variation in the re-evaluation exceeding 20 marks is recognized by the Statutes and therefore, the question of populism by the senior faculty member would not arise, the court said.
“Then remains the question of victimization – victimization by HoD law– the apprehension of controller examination may not be without reason. His apprehension is buttressed by the fact that the HoD has discarded the re-evaluation done by senior faculty member which act is described by the controller examination to have been done the HoD ‘for reasons best known to him’. These statements made by the Controller Examinations, on oath, at least, establish that such things do happen in the University or that there are such possibilities or that there are teachers of such nature even at the highest level of a Department,” the court said, adding, “Since seven students, despite having been admitted to the 2 years’ LL. M. course way back in 2013, are still in the course, nearing its completion and may need to submit their dissertations etc., Vice Chancellor and the controller examination being conscious of the fact that there are possibilities of even senior faculty members victimizing the students, are expected to take appropriate steps to ensure that there remains no occasion for the HoD to subject the seven students to any such treatment by reason of any annoyance on account of their petition (before HC) or for any other reason. What measure should be appropriate is left to their decision.”
