Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Useful Tamil Links

English to Tamil Dictionary

Popular Tamil proverbs

Tamil Calendar

Tamil Quotes for motivation

Thirukkural Search in Tamil and English

Thirukkural Search online

Tamil PDF eBooks for Download

Indian spices and pulses

Indian herbs and plants

Indian vegetables

Fruits names

Flowers names

Birds names

Animals names

Fishes names


HC imposes cost of Rs.25,000 on Madras University

High Court imposes cost of Rs.25,000 on Madras University

Special Correspondent

CHENNAI: Coming down heavily on the University of Madras for getting an M.L. answer sheet revalued by an examiner who is neither academically nor otherwise qualified, the Madras High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.25,000 on the university to be paid to the student for making him approach the court for a second time.

"Students are applying for revaluation only with a hope that revaluation will be done without any bias and by a properly qualified examiner. But, here is a case where the paper in question has been revalued by an examiner who is neither academically qualified nor otherwise qualified," Justice K. Suguna observed while allowing the student's writ petition.

The case of the petitioner, M. Sivakumar, was that he enrolled for M.L. (non-semester) during 2001-2002 in the university as a private student. In the first year, he completed all papers. In the second year, except Comparative Labour Law (USA and UK), he completed the other papers. He wrote the examination in 2009, and was declared failed in the subject. He sought revaluation and filed a writ petition. It was disposed of after the university produced the answer sheet that had been revalued by two professors. They had granted 34 marks and 33 marks. The Judge declined to grant the relief.

When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the university had represented that K. Balasubramaniam was the examiner who revalued the paper. But, on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that no person by that name belonging to Madurai Kamaraj University had revalued the paper.

Using the RTI Act, he found that the evaluation was done by Balasankaran Nair and not Dr. K. Balasubramaniam. Upon enquiries, the petitioner came to know that Dr. Nair had neither studied Labour Law nor taught the subject at the post-graduate level. The petitioner said that appointing such an examiner for the answer paper was arbitrary. Hence, the present petition.

In the order, Ms. Justice Suguna said that in the university counter, there were no particulars about the academic qualification of Dr. Nair in the subject. In the absence of the particulars, it had to be inferred that he was not qualified enough to be a Lecturer in Labour Law or to be the examiner for the Comparative Law paper at the PG level. "It is a very sorry state of affairs," the Judge observed.

In view of the university's stand that it was willing to revaluate the answer sheet, the Judge directed that it be done by a qualified teaching staff within four weeks.

Courtesy_

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

The RTI Act was passed by the Lok Sabha (Lower House) on 11 May 2005, by the Raj Sabha (Upper House) on 12 May 2005 and received Presidential assent on 15 June 2005. Parts of the Act came into force upon Presidential assent, but the Act came fully into force on 12 October 2005, 120 days after Presidential assent.

Search our Blog

Google
 

Subscribe this Blog to your E-mail


Disclaimer

This Blog Spot is meant for publishing reports about the usage of RTI Act (Right to Information Act, 2005) so as to create an awareness to the general public and also to keep it as a ready reckoner by them. So the readers may extend their gratitude towards the Author as we quoted at the bottom of each Post under the title "Courtesy".Furthermore, the Blog Authors are no way responsible for the correctness of the materials published herein and the readers may verify the concerned valuable sources.

Dinamani - RTI News