Miss Nisha Kashyap vs Desh Bandhu College and Others

Gita Mittal, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner complaining that she has taken the final year B.Sc. (Botany Hons.) Exams in the year April, 2007 and that she has been given a marksheet whereby she has been assessed out of 75 marks in every paper while the question paper which was given to her was for the maximum marks of only 55. It has further been submitted that the mark sheet show that the respondents are taking into consideration internal assessment which in the case of the petitioner was never effected inasmuch as she had appeared as an ex-student.

The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit pointing out that the petitioner was initially admitted to the B.Sc. (Botony Hons.) Course conducted by the college under the University of Delhi in the academic year 2002-2003.

The petitioner had successfully completed the first and second academic years. The petitioner appeared for the first time in the B.Sc. (Botony Hons.) final year course in the examination conducted in April and May, 2005. In the mark sheet which was issued to her on 1st July, 2005 by the university, it was found that the petitioner had failed the annual examination. The same position was repeated in the year May, 2006 as the petitioner failed to secure the minimum marks required to qualify the examination. The attempt by the petitioner in April and May, 2007 as an ex-student was her 3rd appearance in the B.Sc. (Botony Hons.) final year examination. The respondents have submitted that as per the University Calendar and the applicable orders and rules, with effect from the academic year 2003-2004, the marks of each student who is admitted to a regular undergraduate course in the Delhi University is computed at the end of each academic year based on not only the marks secured by the candidate in the university examination but also on the candidate''s internal examination. So far as the written examination is concerned, the same is conducted by the University of Delhi while the internal assessment is done by each collage during the course of studies in the concerned academic year. The apportionment between the written examination conducted by the university and the internal assessment effectuated by the college is 75% and 25% respectively. The respondents have also explained the break-up of the internal assessment which include the mid-term examination/estimates; assignment and tutorials etc and the attendance of the candidate.

Inasmuch as the petitioner had failed in the final year examination the petitioner was not enrolled as a regular student, as per the applicable rules she was appearing in the final year examination in the 2006-2007 as an external candidate. For this reason there could possibly be no internal assessment by the petitioner.

Mr. Mathur, learned Counsel for the respondent, has explained that the respondents issue only one question paper for both internal and external candidates and consequently the question paper which was issued to the petitioner reflected the maximum marks of 55 in each paper. The respondents have given the break up of the petitioner in paper V, VI, VII and VIII as 5, 22, 12 and 23 (wrongly typed as 13 in the counter affidavit) respectively. It has been submitted that in view of the fact that there could be no assessment of the internal assessment of the petitioner as she was appearing as an ex-student, her marks were upgraded on a pro-rata basis to evaluate the marks obtained by the petitioner out of the maximum 75 marks. Upon such upgradation and revision the petitioner was found to have secured 7, 30, 16 and 31 marks in paper V, VI, VII and VIII respectively.

A grievance was made by the petitioner that she could not have secured 5 marks in paper VI on account of her preparations and the fact that she was appearing for 3rd time in this paper. For this reason the respondents were required to produce the answer books of the petitioner which have been produced in a sealed cover. The same have been perused and shown to counsel for the petitioner as well. The same is found to be misplaced.

The respondents have given a full explanation as to the manner in which they have assessed the petitioner.

I therefore find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed.

The original record has been returned to learned Counsel for the respondents.