Karnataka HC Sets Aside Single Bench Direction For Repeat Test Of NLSIU Student Alleging Technical Glitch In Online MBL Exam

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by a single judge bench of the court directing the National Law School of India University, (NLSIU) to conduct re-examination in the Corporate Law paper of Formative – I Assessment, for one student out of 708 students who took the exam.A Division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi allowed the appeal filed by NLSIU and set aside the order dated 23.08.2022 wherein it directed the University to conduct re-exam for Manjula PR. The bench on going through the records said “Any difficulty of connectivity faced by her (student) are solely on account of technical issues with her system.” The petitioner had enrolled herself in the II Year MBL program offered by the University. A letter was issued by the University providing details of inter alia the assessment and grading mechanisms for the MBL program. The exam was conducted on 23.01.2022 from 11.30 a.m. to 12 noon. The petitioner and other students faced issues in accessing the exam portal. However, the issues were resolved expeditiously. The students, including the petitioner, were given a full 30 minutes and also some additional time of a few minutes to complete the examination thereafter. On 23.01.2022, the petitioner sent emails to the respondent No.1-University alleging that she had access to the exam for only 8 minutes in total due to auto submission at two instances, one after 5 minutes of getting access and another 3 minutes. The University replied to the above said email stating that as per the data available with the University, the petitioner had access to the examination for the entire duration. The petitioner sent one more email to the vice-chancellor of the respondent-University claiming that her exam was auto submitted in 10 minutes. It was alleged that a full 30 minutes was not provided to the petitioner to complete the examination. Thus she approached the High Court, which allowed her petition. In the appeal the University submitted that totally 708 students, including the petitioner, appeared for the said examination. Out of which, a vast majority, i.e., 693 students completed the examination without any grievance or complaint. Only a few students, including the petitioner, raised the issue of access. Following which the petitioner was given access by 12 noon and continued to have access to the exam until 12.35 p.m by the agency appointed to conduct the examination. Following which 14 of the 15 students who had issues have completed their examination without any further complaint, except the petitioner. Countering the appeal the candidate contended that the University deprived the petitioner of her fundamental rights to avail full assessment time as all other students of the same course and has acted irresponsibly by awarding six marks out of 20 marks.On going through the records the bench noted that the examination was completed by all 707 students without any grievance or complaint except the petitioner. It said “The respondent– University have archive, which contains the zoom video showing that the petitioner was attempting the examination after 12.16 p.m. and it is contended that the video recording is available only till 12.27 p.m. and the respondent has issued an email in response to her request sharing the EDCHEMY log showing she had access to the examination till 12.35 p.m. and the petitioner refused to accept the same and continued making such unreasonable demands.” It then held “ The said aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge and proceeded to pass the said impugned order.” It added “The learned Single Judge erred in ignoring the records produced by the respondent No.1 -University. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the records produced by the respondent No.1- University. The impugned order passed by the writ court is arbitrary and erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.” Thus it allowed the appeal.Case Title: National Law School of India University And Manjula P R & othersCase No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1080 OF 2022Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 64Date of Order: 01-02-2023Appearance: Aditya Narayan, Advocate for appellant. Dinesh Rao N, Advocate for R1. Click Here To Read/Download Order

Karnataka HC Sets Aside Single Bench Direction For Repeat Test Of NLSIU Student Alleging Technical Glitch In Online MBL Exam

Mustafa Plumber

Tags