T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. - (1.)THE petitioner in these Writ Petitions has prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the communication sent by the second respondent, the Controller of Examination, Distance Education, Annamalai University and to direct the respondents to issue revised mark statements to the petitioner in the subjects Complex Analysis and Mathematical statistics based on valuation done by independent Professors appointed by this Court.
(2.)IN the other Writ Petition, the prayer is identical to quash another order, dated 28.07.2011 and to direct the respondents to issue revised mark statements in the subject Graph Theory based on independent valuation.
(3.)THE petitioner joined the M.Sc., (Mathematics) course during 2007 under Distance Education programme conducted by the respondent University and appeared for the examination held in May 2010 in three subjects namely Complex Analysis, Graph Theory and Mathematical statistics. The petitioner was declared 'pass' in all the three subjects and he was awarded 50 marks in each of the three subjects. The petitioner would state that he is entitled to higher marks and therefore, he made a request to the first respondent on 22.10.2010 to furnish the question wise marks obtained by him in those subjects. His request was rejected by letter dated 13.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 19.01.2011 under the Right to Information Act, requesting photostat copies of his answer papers in all three subjects. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, the copies of the answer papers in all the three subjects were furnished to the petitioner on 23.12.2011. Insofar as the subject Complex Analysis (Subject Code 210) and Mathematical Statistics (Subject Code 240), the petitioner found that there was no indication in the answer paper of any evaluation done by the Examiner and marks were entered only in the first page of the answer books, which provided a tabular column indicating the question numbers and marks awarded. Further, it is submitted that the marks awarded for Question No.11(a) and (b) and Question No.12(a)&(b) in the subject Complex Analysis is very less and he is entitled to 15 marks and 20 marks respectively for the answers given by him for those questions. The petitioner further submits that he should have been awarded full 5 marks for question Nos.1 to 3 and 5 instead of 4, 2, 2 respectively and should have been awarded the total marks of 84 instead of 50 in the subject Complex Analysis. Insofar as the subject Mathematical Statistics, the petitioner would state that the marks awarded for Question No.11, 12(a) and (b) and 13(b) are very less and he should have been awarded 20, 20 and 10 marks respectively for those answers and entitled to a total marks of 70.5 instead of 50 marks. With these facts, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Vice Chancellor on 23.01.2012, stating that the valuation was improper. The petitioner would further state that if the marks as sought for by him was awarded, he will be eligible to appear for the National Eligibility Test, failing which he cannot appear for the Test having secured less than 55% marks in M.Sc., (Mathematics). The petitioner submits that out of 8 subjects, the respondent awarded 50 marks out of 100 for 7 subjects and 57 marks out of 100 in one subject namely Real Analysis which shows that no proper valuation was done and mechanically the minimum pass mark of 50 was awarded. The petitioner claims to have performed well in all the 8 subjects and expected more than 75% marks and on account of the improper valuation and irregularity in the pattern of examination, it has ruined his career. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition challenging the order dated 28.03.2011, intimating the petitioner that the marks obtained by her were verified and found correct.
Insofar as the challenge to the order dated 28.07.2011 in W.P.No.23062 of 2012, for the subject Graph Theory, similar contention has been raised by stating that the marks awarded for question Nos.4, 5, 6 and 12(a) are very less and she should have been awarded full 5 marks or more marks and should have been awarded total of 91 marks instead of 40 marks awarded in the answer paper and 50 marks entered in the mark sheet for the subject Graph Theory.