CBSE re-evaluation may affect DU admissions says Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on 11th July 2017 said that outcome of a plea by students seeking a re-evaluation of CBSE Class 12 board exams 2017 answer sheets may affect ongoing Delhi University admission process. According to the court there was a possibility of change in merit position of the students who had applied for re-evaluation, thus making them eligible for admissions.
The Delhi High Court on 11th July 2017 said that outcome of a plea by students seeking a re-evaluation of CBSE Class 12 board exams 2017 answer sheets may affect ongoing Delhi University admission process.
The Delhi High Court said there was a possibility of change in merit position of the students who had applied for re-evaluation, thus making them eligible for admissions. "Therefore, as a matter of abundant caution, the students who are seeking admission, as well as the colleges, need to be kept informed about the pendency of the writ petition & the fact that the process of re-evaluation of marks by the CBSE on the request of some of the students is underway.
“As a result, the merit position of the students could change substantially,” the High Court added. The High Court also said that the admissions effected pursuant to the CBSE exam this year shall be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition.
“It shall be the responsibility of Delhi University to make public as well as inform all colleges regarding this position & put the students, seeking admission to the courses, to notice about the order passed today,” it said, and asked the varsity to file a status report within a day.
The Delhi High court’s direction came after it was informed that it had in 2014 observed that re-evaluation of result was meaningless if its benefit was not given to a student.
“No candidate will be able to use re-evaluation if he/she is denied admission despite improvement in his/her marks,” the court had said while hearing a plea by a student challenging the denial of admission to him by Shri Ram College of Commerce despite an increase of 2% in his marks after re-evaluation of his result.
The students who have sought re-evaluation this year also cited a 2010 High Court judgment in which the court had recorded Delhi University’s statement that admissions could be given till the last cut-off list was announced.
Taking note of this, the Bench noted “The applicability of the directions passed in the previous judgments require to be examined. The above directions would bind the consideration by this court as well”. The Delhi High court was told about the decisions by senior advocate Sanjay Poddar, representing four students who have moved against the CBSE's June 28 notice restricting the right of applying for scrutiny to 12 subjects only and up to 10 questions per subject.
The Delhi high court, in a significant order, had asked the CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) to re-evaluate the answer sheets of all the subjects of all students who wrote the CBSE Class 12 Board exam 2017 and have sought re-evaluation. The CBSE was directed to give benefit of the scheme of scrutiny to students who have a grievance that their answer books have not been checked as per the marking scheme.
The CBSE had issued the notice in pursuance to a statement before the high court during the hearing of a batch of pleas that the aggrieved students could now approach the board under its verification scheme. On the submission made by the CBSE, the bench on June 23 had disposed of the petitions.
However, a group of four students again moved the high court on the ground that the stipulations in the notice were in blatant violation of the statement made before the court. Their counsel told the bench that the CBSE had in fact misled the court into disposing of the writ petitions in terms of the said statement.
Taking note of this, the bench observed that prima facie, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of interim orders.
The court had also issued notices to the Centre, CBSE and the Delhi University on the plea and sought their replies within ten days. The matter has been fixed for further hearing on July 26.