NAGPUR: Facing severe criticism for its failure to take action against erring colleges, Nagpur University administration has decided to finally act tough. It has asked all engineering colleges to furnish correct information on five counts before November 19. They have been asked to supply a list of all students and also those admitted provisionally. They also have to give information about the number of approved and contributory teachers. They also have to give the number of teachers who have reported for mandatory evaluation duty of the university before the deadline. Controller of examinations Vilas Ramteke confirmed the development, but refused to comment further.
Other officials, however, added that the move was planned to expose the colleges which indulge in illegal activities like admitting ineligible students and starting courses even before getting affiliation from the university. "These college then shift blame on NU and send the aggrieved students to the university in case of any problem. We are unnecessarily being made villains by these colleges for no fault of ours. Of course, there were several discrepancies in the evaluation of the answer-sheets, but even those were done by the evaluators from these colleges. They should be punished instead of blaming NU," an official added.
Meanwhile, aggrieved students are planning to approach the court over "deliberate" undervaluation of their answer-sheets by the evaluators. Citing Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court's verdict, they demanded stringent action against the evaluators and also the NU officials. A delegation of students have written a letter to VC Vilas Sapkal warning him that they would file a contempt petition as NU had failed to take action against erring evaluators till date.
What the HC had said in law student's case?
The court, while passing strictures in Richa Inamdar versus NU case of 2010, had reminded NU that it is its duty to give students an assurance that their papers are being evaluated properly and wherever the university finds that there is gross discrepancy, it would be appropriate if it took action under Section 32(6)(a) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.
"We find that in the reassessment done by NU, the petitioner has received almost double marks than those she received earlier. This discrepancy is too wide to be ignored and in all probability is due to error in the first instance. The discrepancy in marks affect the career of students and also their morale," a division bench of Justices Sharad Bobde and Mridula Bhatkar had stated.
0 comments:
Post a Comment