Himachal Pradesh High Court
Naveen Kumar vs H.P. University And Another on 15 June, 2017
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Civil Writ Petition 1108 of 2008
Judgment Reserved on 17.05.2017
Date of Decision 15th June, 2017
________________________________________________________
Naveen Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. University and another ....Respondents
________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ______________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Shri Rajiv Rai, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to issue the consolidated marks sheet for MA (Economics) and to pay Rs.5 lacs compensation for causing mental pain, physical harassment, torture, pecuniary losses and wastage of precious two years of career of petitioner 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 2 for depriving him from appearing in various examinations and interviews and also from getting the benefit of post graduate .
degee in various interviews.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner took admission in MA (Economics) in respondent university in the year 2001. In June, 2004, he appeared in Courses I, II, III of first semester and also Courses IV and VI of second semester, result whereof was declared in the month of October, 2004 and petitioner was conveyed to have obtained marks as under:-
M.A. First Semester (June, 2004) Courses Marks obtained I 16 II 21 III 37 M.A. Second Semester (June, 2004) Courses Marks obtained IV 33 VI Absent
3. Petitioner approached the examination and evaluation Branches of University and lodged his protest for showing him absent in Course VI of second semester. In response to his complaint, his result of Course VI of second semester was ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 3 settled and was informed to him by respondent university through Controller of Examination vide letter dated 2.11.2004 .
(Annexure P-3). However, in this communication dated 2.11.2004 (Annexure P-3) petitioner was shown absent in Course III of first semester and was advised to surrender his result card of first semester examination held in June, 2004.
4. In response to letter dated 2.11.2004, Annexure P-3, petitioner again submitted an application dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure P-4) to the Controller of Examination stating therein that he had appeared in Courses III as well as VI in June 2004 but earlier he was shown absent in Course VI, but after settling result of Course VI he was shown absent in Course III. In this application he requested to settle his result by giving correct marks to him.
During this period only, it was verified by officials of respondent University that as per attendance sheets of these Courses III and VI, petitioner had appeared in both papers. Thereafter, petitioner was assured that matter shall be settled very soon. According to petitioner, thereafter no communication was received from respondent University despite his regular visits to concerned authorities and officials of respondent university. Respondent University has also not placed any document on record pertaining to subsequent correspondence, if any.
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 45. In the meantime petitioner passed remaining papers of MA (Economics) in the year 2005 and thereafter applied for .
consolidated marks sheet on 30.4.2007 by submitting application form, Annexure P5. However, this application was rejected and returned by respondent university with an endorsement "re-
appear stands in C-III" and whereupon petitioner had requested for issuing the consolidated marks sheet vide application dated 23.5.2007 (Annexure P-6) stating therein that despite passing Course III paper with 37 marks in June, 2004, he was being shown absent in said Course. It was also stated in application that petitioner had to appear in an interview. This application was returned to petitioner with endorsement that since petitioner had re-appear in Course III, hence consolidated marks card could not be issued to him and referring letter dated 2.11.2004 (Annexure P-3) in which petitioner was stated to be absent in Course III, petitioner was asked to pass Course III and it was also stated in it that marks of Course VI were wrongly given to petitioner as marks of Course III which which mistake was corrected at later stage and 37 marks were given to him in Course VI.
6. Thereafter, petitioner again submitted an application dated 23.7.2007 (Annexure P-7) for issuance of consolidated ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 5 marks sheet of MA (Economics) by stating that he had appeared in both Courses i.e. Course III of first semester and Course VI of .
second semester, but earlier he was shown absent in Course VI and on his application for correction, he was shown absent in Course III despite the fact that he had passed Course III with 37 marks. In this application request was made to respondent university to issue consolidated marks sheet at the earliest as petitioner had to appear in interview on 1.8.2007 for employment in Godrej company.
7. On receiving no response from respondent university for about one year, petitioner preferred present writ petition in July 2008. Respondent university filed reply on 18.8.2008 enclosing one letter dated 5.8.2008, (Annexure R-1) stating therein that as per information received from Evaluation Branch on 30.7.2008, petitioner had obtained 19 marks in Course III of first semester and result of examinations of first semester in June, 2004 was stated to be as under:-
Courses Marks obtained I 16 II 21 III 19 ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 6 It was also stated in this letter (Annexure R-1) that petitioner was required to re-appear in all Courses.
.
8. In reply, it is stated that from record it was evident that petitioner had obtained 19 marks in Course III of MA (Economics) of first semester examination held in June, 2004 and said result was intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 5.8.2008 (Annexure R-1) and for this reason consolidated marks sheet could not be issued to the petitioner. University has also placed on record the copies of award list (Annexure R-2 and R-3) pertaining to Course VI of MA (Economics) with respect to examination held in June, 2004. As per University, the award list for Course VI (Annexure R-2) was wrongly read as award list of Course III by Examination Branch of University and therefore, marks awarded in Course VI were mentioned against Course III of first semester and as no award was found against Course VI and thus candidate was shown as absent by Examination Branch of University in Course VI. In reply, procedure for preparing result has also been explained. It is stated that for examination held in June, the attendance sheets are normally received by Examination Branch in September/October of said year and result for examination is declared by second week of October and subsequently, Examination Branch prepares the result on ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 7 tabulation charts and post preparation of tabulation chart, the same is re-checked by fresh set of persons, two in numbers in .
Examination Branch, and thereafter entries made in tabulation charts are posted in individual History sheet of concerned student/candidate and in present case initially on account of misreading, examination branch had posted award of course VI against Course III and since examination branch had not received any award from evaluation branch for Course VI, petitioner was shown as absent in Course VI. It is denied that petitioner has passed his MA (Economics) in the year 2005 as petitioner has re-
appear in Course III and for this reason consolidated marks sheet could not be issued to him.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pleadings of parties and documents on record are clearly speaking about not only negligence on part of respondent university, but carelss and indifferent attitude of university and its officials in dealing with matters having grave impact on career of students and therefore, he submits that petitioner is entitled for compensation, as prayed for in petition.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent university submits that petition must fail on account of delay and latches, as petitioner approached the university after three years ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 8 for settling his result of examination held in June, 2004 and he referred Clauses 6.72 and 6.73 contained in Chapter VI of .
Handbook Vol-I of H.P. University Oridinance, wherein it is provided that University has power to rectify its mistake in declaring the result of candidate and submits that university has right to cancel the marks wrongly shown to have obtained by petitioner in Course III in examination held in June, 2004 as on verification, it was found that petitioner had obtained 19 marks in said Course and in fact petitioner had secured 37 marks in Course VI, which on account of mistake, were shown against Course III. Relying upon judgment in Satija Rajesh N. vs. State of H.P. and others 2014(Suppl) Him.L.R. (DB) 2422, he has prayed for dismissal of present petition on account of delay and latches.
11. It is evident from documents placed on record that till filing of reply by respondent University in this petition, petitioner was never conveyed that he has obtained 19 marks in Course III and marks 37 against the said Course were conveyed to him, on account of mistake, rather it was stand of university that petitioner was absent in Course III. Petitioner has filed writ petition on 16.7.2008 and copy of petition was also supplied to learned counsel for respondents on same day. Communication dated 5.8.2008 (Annexure R-1) is subsequent to the said date. It ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 9 appears that after receiving copy of petition, damage control management was undertaken by respondent university and .
letter dated 5.8.2008 (Annexure R-1) was prepared. There is no communication prior to said date in which university had ever informed petitioner about obtaining 19 marks in Course III by him in examination held in June, 2004, and for stand of respondent university that petitioner was absent in Course III, petitioner was agitating to prove that he had appeared in Course III in June 2004 and by believing that he has obtained 37 marks in Course III, he did not apply for re-appearing in said course to avail the chance and to qualify the said paper during the prescribed period. Letter dated 5.8.2007 is another glaring example of negligence and also of irresponsible indifferent attitude of officials/officers of respondent university for which definitely respondent university has to pay. Petitioner has passed Course I and II in November 2004 and June 2005 respectively and this fact, mentioned in application form Annexure P-5, has also been endorsed by respondent university as consolidate mark sheet was denied on 30.4.2004 only on the ground that there was re-
appear in Course III. But in letter 5.8.2007 (Annexure R-1) petitioner has been directed to re-appear in Courses I, II and III.
Despite the fact that there is negligence on the part of ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 10 respondent university, for the reasons that petitioner has not passed Course III of MA (Economics) till date, direction to issue .
consolidated marks sheet of MA (Economics) cannot be given to respondent university.
12. Confronted with such a situation, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has also prayed for any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in interest of justice and fair play and thus he prays for direction to respondent university to grant three chances to appear in Course III of MA (Economics) in old syllabus as it would be difficult to pass Course III after a long span of discontinuation of studies in the subject concerned.
He also prays for awarding reasonable amount of compensation for wasting precious years of career of petitioner and causing mental pain, agony, harassment and also dragging the petitioner in litigation. Learned counsel for respondent university submits that university is not averse to grant two chances for passing Course III to petitioner but he vehemently opposed award of compensation to petitioner on the ground that petitioner himself was negligent in persuing his course and after 2004 he approached the University in the year 2007. According to him, in case petitioner would have acted with due diligence and care in ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 11 the year 2004, his case would have been settled at that time, there and then.
.
13. Petitioner was asked to surrender his result card of first semester and he was warned that failing in surrendering the result card of first semester his candidature for next coming examination can be cancelled. Vide letter 2.11.2004 (Annexure P-3) petitioner was informed that his result of Course VI was settled and awards i.e. 37 marks given to him in Course III, were awarded as marks obtained in Course VI and he was declared absent in Course III. Immediately thereafter on 14.12.2004, vide application Annexure P4, petitioner lodged his protest against showing him absent in Course III and asked the respondent university to settle his case and issue result of second semester.
Thereafter, no response from university was received nor candidature of petitioner was cancelled. Rather, petitioner was allowed to appear in examinations in November 2004 and June, 2005 to pass Courses I and II respectively of first semester. He was under impression that he had obtained 37 marks in Course III and by mistake, he was shown absent in that paper during June 2004 as was also shown absent in Course VI, later on, by respondent university, which was found to be wrong and petitioner was found to have obtained 37 marks. It is only for the ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 12 first time, vide letter dated 5.8.2008 (Annexure R-1), respondent university accepted that petitioner had appeared in Course III by .
disclosing that he had scored 19 marks in the said Course.
14. Plea of delay and latches raised on behalf of respondent is not sustainable as after filing application dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure P-4), plea of petitioner asserting his presence in examination of Course III held in June 2004, was never responded by respondent university till filing of reply to present petition and petitioner was allowed to appear in subsequent examinations for passing Courses I and II of first semester without insisting for surrender of result card with 37 marks in Course III. The conduct of respondent university was amounting to acceptance of claim of petitioner and therefore, there was no occasion to petitioner to represent again or to approach the Court before 2007 when application filed by petitioner for issuance of consolidation marks sheet was returned by university with endorsement that there was re-appear in Course III and also again rejection of application for issuance of consolidated marks sheet on 23.5.2007. In 2007 also, vide application dated 23.7.2007, Annexure P-7, petitioner has reiterated his claim of appearing and passing Course III in June 2004, but said application was also never responded by ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 13 respondent university and petitioner was constrained to file present petition and it is only for the first time that in reply, .
respondent university has come forward with plea that petitioner was not absent in Course III but was unsuccessful by scoring 19 marks in June, 2004. In this set of events, there is no delay on part of petitioner in approaching the Court or respondent university.
15. Conducting examination, declaring results, posting marks, issuing certificates and awarding degrees to students is a delicate function to be performed by respondent university with due diligence and care as it involves not only career of students but faith reposed by students and society upon the concerned university. Respondent university is supposed to perform its responsibility with high degree of carefulness so as to maintain sanctity of examinations. It is true that despite due diligence and care there is always possibility of committing mistake, but such mistakes are also supposed to be rectified within reasonable period by dealing the issue with sensitivity so as to avoid adverse impact of such mistakes on career of students. Present case is a glaring example of not only indifferent attitude but also of careless, irresponsible and negligence behaviour on part of ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 14 officers/officials of respondent university for which definitely respondent university is liable.
.
16. Petitioner has not specifically prayed for grant of chances to pass out Course III and rightly so as till filing of reply in petition by respondent university, he was under belief that he had passed Course III by scoring 37 marks. Though during pendency of petition also, no application for amending the relief clause has been filed, however, in any case, Court has always power to mould the relief. Petitioner has also prayed for any other relief which is considered to be fit to be passed in his favour in the interest of justice. Therefore, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances, it is a fit case to issue direction to the university to provide chances to petitioner for completing his Master degree by allowing him to take examination of Course III of MA (Economics).
17. Keeping in view that now syllabus has changed and after a gap of 13 years, it would not be easy to petitioner to prepare for examination and he may not be able to pass Course III in one chance, respondent university is directed to grant at least three chances to petitioner to pass Course III in old syllabus in which he was undertaking his studies of MA (Economics) by giving him reasonable time for preparation. Respondent ::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP 15 university immediately after receipt of copy of judgment or production thereof by petitioner, whichever is earlier, shall .
undertake the exercise for taking examination, as directed hereinabove, which shall be communicated to the petitioner.
18. In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that petitioner is also entitled for exemplary amount of compensation from respondent university. However, keeping in view the fact that university has agreed to grant chances to petitioner to pass Course III, it would be reasonable to direct the university to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. In aforesaid terms, petition stands disposed of.
June 15, 2017 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 19/06/2017 23:59:21 :::HCHP