The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Mend valuation system, court tells varsity

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jul 13, 2004

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Mend valuation system, court tells varsity

By Our Staff Reporter

CHENNAI, JULY 12. Expressing anguish at the plight of students awaiting the outcome of their writ petitions in the `improvement examination case' and the `22 disputed questions case,' the Madras High Court today suggested that Anna University improve its system.

Reserving judgment on a batch of appeals against a single judge order in the disputed questions case, the First Bench observed: ``Parents sell property and spend lakhs and lakhs of rupees (on education). Students have lost all the pleasures of their childhood. After everything, if this is the result...?''

The Bench, comprising the Chief Justice B. Subhashan Reddy and Justice Prabha Sridevan, is hearing two different batches of petitions, clubbed together as they pertained to professional course admissions. While orders were reserved in the improvement examination matter last week, the First Bench stayed the entire counselling process when it took up the disputed questions case.

Today, during arguments, Mr. Justice Reddy said, ``we do not want to see students in court. They should be elsewhere — on playground during play hours and in schools during class hours.''

He made it clear that whatever the order, it would be made applicable to all students, including those who were not before the court. ``We know the fate of students who cannot afford to come to court.''

System `fallacious'

Earlier, the judges doubted the very rationale of referring the selected questions, along with answer keys, of the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examinations (TNPCEE) to an expert committee for review.

``Questions are given with answer keys. Again, putting them to an expert committee is not good in our opinion.''

Stating that differences of opinion or contradictions of views were bound to crop up between the examiner and the experts, leading to new causes of action, the Bench told G. Masilamani, senior counsel for the university, ``it is fallacious. Why should there be a multichannel evaluation system? Why cannot you work towards a foolproof method at least next year?''

The present system would result only in duplication of work, the Chief Justice said.

``There is no credit in your stating that there was no incident of question paper leakage in the university's history. There is leakage of quality, leading to litigation.''

The Bench mooted the formation of an `Education Tribunal,' comprising experts in various subjects, to handle complications arising out of examination and admission-related issues.

Pointing out that the university had very good reputation abroad, the Bench said it should put together a scheme, which enhanced the quality of its examinations.

Mr. Masilamani maintained that the expert committee would review the answer keys and submit its recommendations before the commencement of valuation, thereby minimising students' grievances. The university accepted the single judge's orders and did not file any appeal, considering the urgent nature of the case and the future of students.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu