while I was waiting in Court hall 23, Chennai High Court, for my senior's case item number to reach, I happened to witness, incidentally, the most hilarious Court room drama, so far, where two lawyers were seriously engaging in their usual battle and in the process, trying to teach the Judge the State school board physics! The lawyers had good grip of the subject necessary and relevant to their case. The one who represented the teacher, while addressing the Court, mentioned "five" (which, in 'Physics', represents angle) but the Judge understood it as numerical five and it took some time and exchange of type sets, before they (judges and lawyers) both came to a mutual understanding. It was quite amusing to watch when Judge Sudhakar tried to understand the physics involved in it, until, he fortunately realized that he would need one year, atleast, to learn what the basics of physics are about and started focusing on only legal arguments.
The case of student who wanted his answer paper re-evaluated was that he applied for the reevaluation of his paper, and he was awarded the 1 mark he sought for since the teachers found that he had faulted only on technical reason but content-wise he had written the answer correctly. Accordingly the student’s marks were increased from 139 to 140. However, the student must have been equally unlucky because, the teachers, while revaluating his paper, had discovered in some other part of the answer sheet , a wrong answer for which an another one mark was deducted, so cumulatively, his marks reverted to 139 from 140.
The ridiculous contention, therefore, put forth on behalf of the student before the Court, was that the Judge should order the teachers to award the 1 mark (which was deducted for having discovered the other incorrect answer) back since the revaluation should have been confined to part of the answer sheet which the student felt he was aggrieved by alone.
The Judge apparently did not accept the contention and held the reevaluation should be considered in totality and it relieved his physics anxiety too.
Varman, Please don't write the names of the judges and all. It could be defamatory or contempt of court. I know you can come up with a hundred arguments as to why it is not. But we shouldn't be in a position where we will have to argue that.
ReplyDeleteoh! what would say about this? I was thinking of uploading some controversial audio file which I recorded during our field trip but I dint for I was told by a colleague it might lead to a problem:) You might know which audio i am referring to. I wanted public to know about it eventually sometime.
ReplyDelete