The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a plea seeking to quash the charge memo issued against certain lecturers and senior lecturers from District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Oddanchatram, for improper evaluation of answer sheets pertaining to subjects part of Diploma in Teacher Training.
Calling on the State to come up with a fool proof system to eradicate extraneous consideration, malpractices and corrupt activities while holding exams, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a plea seeking to quash the charge memo issued against certain lecturers and senior lecturers from District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Oddanchatram, for improper evaluation of answer sheets pertaining to subjects part of Diploma in Teacher Training.
Justice S M Subramaniam on noting that a plain reading of the charges against the petitioners reveal that the difference of marks is enormous and shocking to the conscious of the Court, said, “Students, who are entitled to be awarded with 9 marks were awarded with 50 marks and the difference is 41 marks. It is an alarming factor. Thus, a detailed enquiry in respect of the allegations are undoubtedly warranted.”
Observing that the offence as well as the misconduct of such nature would affect the very foundation of the educational system across the nation, the judge in the common order said, “It is pertinent to note that such allegations are now-a-days common in various Universities and investigations are also going on in respect of such allegations. Thus, the State as well as the Education Department must be doubly cautious in maintaining a fool proof system for preparation of question papers, evaluation of answer sheets and publication of results.”
“If any loopholes are identified, the State must immediately review the entire system and correct the same for the purpose of developing transparency and to curtail the possibility of discrepancy, corrupt activities and errors,” the judge said.
Setting aside the petitioners claim that they are innocent of the allegations and that they awarded marks based on the evaluations made in accordance with the key answers as well as the guidelines issued, Justice Subramaniam said, “Even in such cases the petitioners are bound to submit their respective explanations and establish their innocence or otherwise by participating in the process of enquiry and by producing the documents, explanations and by adducing evidence.”
“The High Court cannot entertain the explanations submitted by the writ petitioners with reference to the allegations. Thus, the authorities competent must be allowed to proceed with the enquiry by affording an opportunity to all the writ petitioners as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. The Disciplinary Proceedings initiated must reach its logical conclusion,” Justice Subramaniam added while granting two weeks to the petitioners to submit their explanations.