9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of unfair assessment in practical examination. 2. The conduct and behavior of the internal examiner. 3. The role and responsibility of the external examiner. 4. The complaint and remedial actions taken by the institution and the Board. 5. The impact on the examinee's academic and future career. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Allegations of unfair assessment in practical examination: The petitioner, a brilliant student, alleged that her Physics practical marks were unfairly assessed by the internal examiner, Singh, due to personal animosity. Despite performing well in other subjects and expecting high marks in the practical, she was awarded significantly lower marks in Physics practical compared to her peers. The court noted that the unusually low marks in the disputed examination awarded to Jyoti, who appears to be a brilliant girl, were a significant indicator of unfair assessment. 2. The conduct and behavior of the internal examiner: Singh, the internal examiner, was accused of exploiting his position by conducting private coaching classes and showing favoritism towards students who attended his classes. Jyoti had initially attended these classes but stopped due to Singh's focus on a subject she was not interested in. Singh allegedly threatened her and refused to verify her practical journal, which was later certified by the Principal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the allegations against Singh, including his past record of misconduct and the serious allegations made by Jyoti and her father. 3. The role and responsibility of the external examiner: The external examiner, Dhage, was criticized for his passive role in the practical examination process. Despite being responsible for ensuring fair assessment, he allowed Singh to handle the answer papers and did not intervene when irregularities were reported. The court noted that while no direct motives were alleged against Dhage, his passive attitude and failure to fulfill his responsibilities contributed to the unfair assessment. 4. The complaint and remedial actions taken by the institution and the Board: Jyoti's father lodged multiple complaints with the Principal and the Board, detailing the unfair treatment and seeking remedial action. The Principal corroborated the complaints and reprimanded Singh for his conduct. However, the Board initially failed to investigate the matter adequately, citing a lack of machinery to handle such complaints. The court emphasized the importance of acting on such complaints to maintain the integrity of the examination system and directed the Board to hold a fresh practical examination for Jyoti. 5. The impact on the examinee's academic and future career: The unfair assessment had a significant impact on Jyoti's academic and future career, as she aimed to join a Medical College where high marks in Physics were crucial. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the matter and the potential long-term consequences for Jyoti. To mitigate the damage, the court ordered a fresh practical examination and expedited the process to ensure Jyoti could still apply for admissions in the current academic session. Conclusion: The court quashed the result of Jyoti's Physics practical examination, finding it vitiated by bad faith, and directed the Board to conduct a fresh examination. The judgment highlighted the broader issue of exploitation and unfair practices in the educational system, emphasizing the need for strict action against erring examiners to uphold the integrity of the examination process. The court also directed Singh to bear the costs of the petitioner and other respondents.
|
