Reassessment row: HC rules in favour of student

Ahmedabad: In a setback to the Gujarat University, a full-bench of the Gujarat high court on Friday upheld the single-judge bench order, holding the university responsible for miscalculation of marks in reassessment and misinterpreting the rules of reevaluation.

On requisition of reassessment from students, the university normally goes for second reassessment. In cases where the difference of marks is more than 15 per cent, the marks obtained after reevaluation is binding. But the university does not consider the revised marks in cases where the difference is less than 15 per cent, giving a miss to Rule 9 that says that “the marks obtained by a student upon reassessment would be final and binding upon the student”.

Justice D H Waghela intervened when a student of Gandhinagar’s

Karnavati School of Dentistry, Megha Goswami, approached the court with her case. She scored 46 out of 100 marks in the oral pathology and micro biology subject in her final year. But the minimum passing marks are 50. She went for reassessment in March, and was later awarded 50 marks.

However, the university declared her failed and did not give her the four-mark rise. She filed a petition in the high court, where the university tried to justify its decision by saying that in such cases, the university applies Rule 11. Since the difference of marks was not above 15 per cent in Goswami’s case, marks increased during reassessment were not given effect.

Goswami’s lawyer Bhargav Hasurkar contended that Rule 9 clearly stipulates that the marks obtained by a student upon reassessment are final and binding upon the student. As per this rule, Goswami was entitled to be awarded the revised marks, he argued.

On June 13, justice Waghela concluded that the controller of examination was wrong in disregarding rule 9 of reassessment. The high court asked the university to increase four marks in the paper and declare the student as passed in the examination.

The university authority challenged this order, and a three-judge bench of chief justice S J Mukhopadhaya, justice A S Dave and justice J B Pardiwala heard the appeal, but was not convinced with the university’s argument.