LI Network
Published on: 29 January, 2024 at 12:15 IST
In a recent development, the Delhi High Court emphasized that it cannot order the re-evaluation of a marksheet if the prescribed procedure, as outlined in a university’s Student Handbook, is not adhered to.
The ruling came from the bench of Justice C Hari Shankar, asserting that the Court’s intervention is warranted only when the stipulated re-evaluation process is followed by the petitioner.
Justice C Hari Shankar remarked, “there is a stipulated procedure for re-evaluation envisaged in the Student Handbook. Where there is a stipulated procedure for re-evaluation and that procedure is not followed, the Court cannot direct re-evaluation of the marksheet.
No doubt, if the petitioner would have followed the procedure prescribed for re-evaluation and the respondent, nonetheless, did not re-evaluate her grades, the Court would be well within its jurisdiction to direct reevaluation. In the present case, however, the petitioner did not follow the procedure envisaged in the Student Handbook for re-evaluation of her grade-sheet.”
The petitioner completed her B.A. (Hons.) Geography degree from Kamala Nehru College, University of Delhi, in 2015. Subsequently, in August 2016, she enrolled in the M.Sc. (Geoinformatics) program at the TERI School of Advanced Studies (TSAS).
The TSAS provided a Student Handbook outlining the evaluation criteria, including grading and performance assessment. The handbook specified a minimum Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 6.0 for the M.Sc. (Geoinformatics) degree.
Upon receiving a grade sheet indicating a CGPA of 5.88 after the fourth semester, falling below the required minimum, the petitioner sought re-evaluation, but the TSAS rejected the request.
In July 2018, the TSAS informed the petitioner of her CGPA and the failure to meet the minimum requirement. She was presented with two options: discontinuing the program without a degree or registering for Semester V to undertake another major project.
The Student Handbook outlined a formal process for grade review, involving discussions with faculty, application to the Dean (Academic), and a possible review by the Master’s Programme Executive Committee (MPEC). However, the petitioner did not follow the formal procedures and submitted a representation to the UGC, leading to the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) examining the case thoroughly.
In response to the TSAS decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the decision and seeking relief.
The court, in its observations, highlighted that ordering re-evaluation without adherence to the handbook procedure would set an undesirable precedent. Justice C Hari Shankar concluded that the petitioner’s failure to follow the stipulated procedure in the handbook precluded the court from directing re-evaluation.
As a result, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Momisha vs University Grants Commission
