Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. The petitioner is a III LL.B., law student who took the examination held for the academic year 1984-85 in May, 1985. At the end of the examinations conducted by the university of Bangalore - 1st respondent herein, the petitioner has obtained 32 marks in Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing, 8 marks In Labour Law and 26 marks in Administrative Law. He applied for revaluation of his answer scripts in all the three subjects. After revaluation in accordance with the prevailing ordinance of the University-1st respondent; his results have remained, in those subjects, unchanged. Aggrieved by the same, he has approached this Court inter alia contending that the method of referring to only one external valuer as opposed to the earlier practice of referring to more than one examiner, by the amendment brought about by the Syndicate is void as the Syndicate does not have the power to amend the ordinance in the matter of conducting examinations. Another limb of the above contention is that the Academic Council of the University alone must deal with matters concerning valuation, appointment of examiners etc.
2. Reliance has been placed in support of his argument on the language of Sections 25, 27 and 39 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. The thrust of the argument is that the Syndicate can only make ordinance providing for the physical conduct of examinations and no more. Unless the Academic Council makes regulations providing for revaluation, ordinance made by the Syndicate cannot be sustained and therefore, it is contended that the regulation of revaluation itself is incompetent.
3. Before examining the merits of this contention, let us see what happens if we assume that the arguments advanced are correct and upheld. The effect will be the relevant ordinance providing for revaluation becomes invalid and non-existent. In the result, the student will have no right to have his script revalued. Admittedly, the Academic Council has not made any regulations for revaluation. This Court certainly cannot compel the Academic Council to make such regulations.
4. Now, to the merits of the contention. Section 25 of the Act provides for the powers of the Syndicate. Under Cl. (c) to Sub-section 2 of Section 25 of the Act the Syndicate is empowered to appoint, subject to the provisions of Section 31: examiners and moderators and if necessary to change or to remove them and also to fix their fees, emoluments and travelling and other allowances, as is clear from the above sub-clause. Section 31 of the Act provides for the manner in which the examiners must be appointed. Sub Section 2 of Section 31 provides that the Board shall prepare the lists from amongst persons included in the panels to be prepared by the Board of Studies, and shall submit them for approval to the Syndicate which shall then appoint the examiners. In other words, the Syndicate is not totally independent and competent to appoint examiners. It has to observe the procedure provided in Section 31 of the Act. Section 31 of the Act provides for appointment of Board of Examiners. It also provides that the Board shall consist of members named therein. On the other hand, Section 27 provides for the powers of the Academic Council and Section 27(2)(b) specifically to make regulations regarding the courses of study in so far they are not covered by the ordinances and under Cl. (h) to fix the conditions under which exemptions relating to the admission of students to examinations may be given and Cl. (c) to make regulations regarding the schemes of the examinations and conditions on which the students shall be admitted to the examinations, degrees, diplomas, certificates or other academic distinctions. In other words, if one pays attention to the provisions contained in Sub-section 1 of Section 27 whatever power the Academic Council exercises by framing regulations, it shall be subject to the provisions of the Act, the ordinances and statutes made by the Syndicate and the Senate and will have lesser force than the ordinance and statutes made by the Syndicate and the Senate and to the extent of repugnancy the ordinances of the Syndicate and the statutes of the Senate will prevail. This is obvious from the scheme now prevailing in Cl. (c) of Sub-section 2 of Section 27 which provides for the regulations being made for determining the scheme of examinations and conditions on which the student shall be admitted to the examinations degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions. These words used indicate that the Academic Council has no part in the conduct of examinations which is the exclusive domain of the Syndicate.
5. If the Syndicate makes ordinances providing for revaluation, this Court must understand that that power should have been exercised in furtherance of its general, power to conduct examinations. The conduct of examinations as contended by the Learned Counsel cannot be restricted to the physical aspect only. From the time the student getting admitted to the examination hall, till results are announced, all events constitute one single act of conducting examinations whose object is to announce results of the performance of the students according to the standards laid down by the Academic Council. If that is the scheme, then, as part of examination and assessments of the value of the performance of the students in each subject, the process of valuation by the examiners appointed by the Syndicate is clearly permissible. Any checks and balances to maintain the standards in accordance with the scheme of the Act has itself provided separately for the Board of Examiners and the choice of the examiners by the Board to others. Therefore, the Academic Counsel shall only frame regulations within its specified field and the Syndicate is competent to frame or make ordinances to conduct examinations.
6. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the student is entitled to know the marks after revaluation. This Court has taken the view that such right of the student is non-existent and University must maintain the confidentiality of the Examinations. The ordinance clearly provides that it is only the result if changed to the advantage of the student as a result of revaluation that is required to be communicated and not otherwise.
In the result, there is no merit in this Writ Petition and it is rejected.