It's a matter of coincidence: BU authorities

On May 9, Deccan Herald had reported that the Bangalore University authorities had hastily taken up and completed the re-evaluation of Phaniraj Kashyap’s Civil Procedure Code paper, while the re-evaluation applications of over 3,000
other students were still pending.

The said report nowhere intended to suggest that the University authorities had done a favour to Phaniraj by awarding him 65 marks in the re-evaluation, though he might have secured just 18 marks in the original evaluation.

The favour was just that Phaniraj’s  paper was singled out for re-evaluation, while the other applications seeking re-evaluation were still gathering dust.

Poor evaluation

Indeed, the answer sheet as evaluated by the first evaluator, a certified copy of which was made available to Deccan Herald, makes it abundantly clear that Phaniraj was a victim of extremely poor evaluation carried out by the original evaluator, who it would seem, had failed to apply himself to the requirements of proper evaluation.

While the evaluator had awarded 18 marks, a simple totalling of the marks he had entered in the proper format provided in the front page of the answerscript adds up to 20 marks.

The error is not just with the totaling of the front page entries. The error is compounded by the fact that even the entries made in the front page are inaccurate. Because, the marks awarded to different answers in the answerscript actually adds up to 22 marks.
So, in the tabulation process, the evaluator deprives the student 4 marks!

Of course, this is not to talk about the very evaluation of the answer paper.

The student, who had successively maintained first class scores in the previous eight semesters, got just 18 marks? No, no way.

This was established, of course, by the two re-evaluations - one giving him 65 marks and the other awarding 63.

Others still waiting

The point, however, Deccan Herald highlighted in the May 9 report was that there were still over 3,000 students who, it is very probable, might be victims of reckless evaluation. So, why deliver belatedly quick justice to only one student?

Others who had applied for re-evaluation have now been waiting for well over two months.

Much as the University authorities might maintain that the quick re-evaluation was a mere coincidence, it is no secret that Phaniraj had personally approached the Vice Chancellor with a request to expedite the re-evaluation.

The question is whether every student, who has applied for re-evaluation, has to knock at the Vice Chancellor's door before the University moves on the re-evaluation application.