G. Meena Vs. Controller of Examinations, Osmania University, Hyd. and Another

G. Meena vs Controller of Examinations, Osmania University, Hyd. and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Sep 17, 1999

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/424729

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/424729
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: B.S.A. Swamy, J.
Decided On: Sep 17, 1999
Case Number: WP No. 18285 of 1999
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution - revaluation of paper - petitioner filed writ petition contending that University had not communicated result of revaluation of her paper - marks shown in memorandum of marks not tallied with marks awarded in answer script - respondent-University gave no explanation for variations in marks - held, resp...

Key legal issue: Constitution

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

G. Meena

Advocate Mr. T. Pulla Rao, Adv.

Respondent

Controller of Examinations, Osmania University, Hyd. and Another

Advocate Mr. K. Ramakanth Reddy, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 2000(1)ALD198; 1996(6)ALT337

Excerpt

.....the act to seek compensation under section 166 of the act resulting in award passed by the tribunal. therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. the owner is therefore, tortfeasor. section 168: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers limit of liability - held, it is well settled that the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the act, instead of seeking compensation under the workmens compensation act. on facts, held, the material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. the settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye...........the examination, not otherwise. hence, the explanation offered by the respondents cannot be believed. at any rate, they have no explanation for the variations in the marks obtained by the petitioner in the physics -paper after revaluation. in fact, the marks shown in the memorandum of marks are less than the marks awarded in the answer script. when the petitioner paid the requisite fee seeking revaluation, even then, the university authorities did not open their eyes and they sent a stamped post-card stating that there is no change in the revaluation of the results. it shows that all is not well with the conduct of examination by the university. in fact, the petitioner repeatedly made a request to send these papers for revaluation to an outside examiner to find out whether the valuation of the answer scripts of the petitioner is proper or not. if the judgment of the supreme court not came in my way, i would havedefinitely done this, as the times are passing by, more and more students are approaching this court saying that the valuation undertaken by the institutions of learning was not on scientific basis and left to the individuals. whims and fancies of the valuation officers, thereby making the lives of the teenagers miserable. as i am bound by the judgment of the supreme court, i am not in a position to acceed to the request of the petitioner. however, vice-chancellor, osmania university is directed frame guidelines for valuation of the papers by the examiners, with the aid and advice of he subject-experts, and publish the same to dispel the fears from the minds of the student community. i also direct the vice-chancellor to place this judgment before the executive council of the university to apprise them on the deficiencies in valuation of the papers of the students. i hope and trust that the executive council and the vice-chancellor will bestow their attention and see that the apprehensions in the minds of the students are wiped out.5. the writ petition.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The petitioner, B.Sc., III Year student studying in respondent-University, filed this writ petition questioning the in action on the part of the respondent-University in not communicating the result of the revaluation of her paper for which she paid the required fee.

2. By order dated 27-8-1999 I directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- by way of Demand Draft in favour of Registrar, Osmania University and also directed the University to produce papers for inspection by the Court. Thereafter, the petitioner received one rubber-stamped post-card 'there is no change in the revaluation results'. The procedure adopted by the University is unknown to law and the same is deprecated by this Court. After production of the papers, this Court having seen that the marks shown in the memorandum of marks are not tallying with the marks that are given to the questions in the answerpapers and having noticed that some of the answers were not awarded marks, by order dated 6-9-1999 directed the Vice-Chancellor to get the papers revalued by another valuation officer and to produce the same before the Court. As per the marks list produced by the University, after revaluation in pursuance of the directions of this Court, it is seen that in Mathematics paper the petitioner got 26 marks i.e., less than 4 marks as per the marks awarded in the answer script and 9 marks as per the memorandum of marks and in Physics paper she was awarded 61 marks i.e., 3 marks more than the marks shown in answer script as well as memorandum of marks.

3. The respondents' Counsel submits that as the University has added 5 grace marks to all the students, the marks of the petitioner were shown as 35 in Maths paper.

4. To my knowledge the question of adding grace marks will arise only in case the student is likely to get through the examination, not otherwise. Hence, the explanation offered by the respondents cannot be believed. At any rate, they have no explanation for the variations in the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Physics -paper after revaluation. In fact, the marks shown in the memorandum of marks are less than the marks awarded in the answer script. When the petitioner paid the requisite fee seeking revaluation, even then, the University authorities did not open their eyes and they sent a stamped post-card stating that there is no change in the revaluation of the results. It shows that all is not well with the conduct of examination by the University. In fact, the petitioner repeatedly made a request to send these papers for revaluation to an outside examiner to find out whether the valuation of the answer scripts of the petitioner is proper or not. If the judgment of the Supreme Court not came in my way, I would havedefinitely done this, as the times are passing by, more and more students are approaching this Court saying that the valuation undertaken by the institutions of learning was not on scientific basis and left to the individuals. Whims and fancies of the valuation officers, thereby making the lives of the teenagers miserable. As I am bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court, I am not in a position to acceed to the request of the petitioner. However, Vice-Chancellor, Osmania University is directed frame guidelines for valuation of the papers by the examiners, with the aid and advice of he subject-experts, and publish the same to dispel the fears from the minds of the student community. I also direct the Vice-Chancellor to place this judgment before the Executive Council of the University to apprise them on the deficiencies in valuation of the papers of the students. I hope and trust that the Executive Council and the Vice-Chancellor will bestow their attention and see that the apprehensions in the minds of the students are wiped out.

5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1999 Same Parties G. Meena vs Controller of Examinations, Osmania University, H... Same Subject Constitution Same Judge B.S.A. Swamy, J.

Constitution