``It's sheer injustice to the students. Let us revert to the old system of evaluation of answer-sheets and not play with the career of the students," remarked the principal of a local college when asked for his comments on the table-marking of the answer-sheets of different classes now in progress on the Punjabi University campus.

``I wonder how the university expects us to mark one answer-sheet in just less than eight minutes when there are up to 25 questions to be checked in each paper '', said a college lecturer now on duty as examiner at the table-marking in the university. This system of marking has drawn flak from different quarters. At a meeting of college principals held here yesterday, a demand was reportedly made for a review of the evaluation system.

The answer-sheets of different undergraduate classes of Punjabi University are being evaluated on the campus. The work is done in two sessions from 9 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and from 1 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. by about ten teachers in each subject at the centre. One teacher is given 25 answer-sheets to be marked in each session.

An interesting aspect of table-marking is that the university invites teachers for evaluation work without keeping in view the proficiency of the teacher in the subject. According to senior teachers, in specialised disciplines like commerce, one has to be teaching a subject regularly to be able to evaluate answer-sheets in that subject. For example, a teacher who has not taught corporate accounting or banking and international law to B. Com Part II students can hardly do justice to the examinees in evaluation.

A senior teacher who did not want to be identified, said that there were about 15 papers in B. Com Part I, II and III classes. A teacher in commerce teaches only three subjects during an academic year. According to the accepted norms, a teacher should be teaching a particular subject for at least three years to become eligible to work as examiner. This norm was being followed up to 1986 when the system of table-marking was introduced.

According to sources in the university, teachers are being picked up at random for appointment as examiners without keeping the three-year teaching in a particular subject in mind. No wonder that a teacher who has never never taught a particular subject like cost accounting or management accounting to B Com Part III can hardly do a fair job if given answer-sheets in these subjects for evaluation. But this is being done.

Under the old system of marking papers, the paper setter used to be the head examiner. He would not only send to sub-examiners solutions to different questions but also give specific instructions about how much weightage to be given to a particular part of a question. The sub-examiners would, in turn, send a sample of ten answer-books to the head examiner for formal approval of the standard of marking. The head examiner was expected to check at least ten per cent of the total answer-books sent by sub-examiners. Under the new system, gone are the head examiners. The examiners at table-marking go about their job and whatever they do is final.

When contacted, Joginder Singh Puar, Vice-Chancellor, justified the system of table-marking saying that this had curbed the increasing tendency among the examinees to approach examiners for "favours or unfair practices". On the issue of proficiency of teachers in a particular subject, he said that teachers were expected to be able to mark papers of undergraduate classes and no specialisation was required.

Ram Murti Goel, Pro-Vice-Chancellor who is in charge of examinations, asserted that eight minutes were enough to mark an answer-book. He said he had brought down the number of answer-books to be marked daily this year and this number may still be further reduced to boost efficiency.

Sources in the university pointed out that paper-setters were being appointed from outside the panels prepared by the Board of Studies in each subject. According to university rules, only a teacher who has taught a particular subject for at least three years, should be appointed paper- setter. However, this was being given a go by and outsiders were being appointed paper-setters. The V-C justified this saying that this was being done only in emergency situations when those on the panel refused to set the papers.