Nagpur: Ahead of its 105th convocation on coming Saturday, a topper has questioned the merit list by Nagpur University (NU) which it has revised several times. One of the toppers has filed a complaint after the exam section increased marks of another student who had scored less marks than the Number 2 yet was awarded first place.
In her letter to the director of board of examinations and evaluation, an MA student has pointed out several mistakes in the merit list and demanded an explanation. The complaint states that the merit list dated February 26 didn’t carry her name though she scored more than what was mentioned against the declared topper.
As per the merit list, the topper scored 1069 with a CGPA 8.80 while the aggrieved student’s score was 1075. However, her CGPA was less than the topper at 8.75.
As per the letter, the exam section not only increased the original topper’s marks but also included the complainant’s name at second place in the revised merit list issued on March 14.
Director Neeraj Khaty didn’t answer to TOI’s calls. Exam officials said the formula for calculating CGPA is different and it is possible to have more marks but low CGPA.
The aggrieved student has sought clarification regarding the merit list. She has asked why didn’t the exam section officials sort out the merit order before publishing the final list. Th complainant has also asked for a copy of objection raised by the topper since her marks were less before filing the complaint.
The exam officials said the revaluation marks of the topper were added later and, therefore, her total score increased to 1079. Before this, there have been cases when marks were reduced in revaluation.
On November 9, 2017, TOI had reported how an LLB (three years) student cried foul when her marks were deducted in revaluation. The student had scored good marks in all subjects but was not happy with one of the subjects ‘Transfer of Property’ and applied for revaluation to improve the result. Surprisingly, her marks were deducted even in multiple choice questions where the answers were correct.
The exam section has also not clarified if the first list has been scrapped or not. The footnote simply states that ‘the earlier list was published on February 26’, on which the aggrieved student filed objection.
