Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devender Singh vs Kurukshetra University on 19 March, 2001
Author: J. S. Khehar
Bench: J. S. Khehar
JUDGMENT J. S. Khehar, J.
1. The petitioner as a regular student at Government College, Jind appeared for the final B.A. Part-II examination conducted by the Kurukshetra University in April, 2000. The result of the aforesaid examination was declared on 10.08.2000. A perusal of the result card issued to the petitioner, copy of which has been appended to the writ petition as An-nexure P-l reveals that the petitioner had passed in all the papers except in the subject of English. The result also reveals that the petitioner had qualified the paper in the subject of geography only after he had been awarded grace marks.
2. Having failed only in one subject, it was permissible for the petitioner to appear in the said subject in the supplementary examination to be conducted in October, 2000. To avail of the opportunity to clear the paper in which he had failed, the petitioner submitted the prescribed form and fee. After scrutiny, the University finding everything in order issued the petitioner Roll No. 312100, thereby permitting the petitioner to sit in the English paper during the supplementary examinations to be conducted in October, 2000. The petitioner, indeed, appeared in the said paper. Despite the fact that the result of others, who had appeared with him has been declared, the result of the petitioner was withheld.
3. On 13.12.2000, the petitioner allegedly visited Kurukshetra University to make enquiries. He come to know that his result in the English paper for which he had appeared in October, 2000 had not been issued on account of the fact that the University had arrived at the conclusion that he was ineligible to appear in the supplementary examination conducted in October, 2000. His enquiries further revealed that he had been declared to have been failed in B.A. Part-II examination conducted in April, 2000. On the same date i.e. 13.12.2000, the petitioner alleges that he obtained a photocopy of a letter dated 04.09.2000 addressed by the Kurukshetra University to the Principal, Government College, Jind, a copy of which has been appended to the writ petition as Annexure P-2. Its contents are fully extracted hereunder for facility of reference :-
"The result of the following candidates of B.A.-II Examination held in April, 2000 was declared as Compartment due to wrong grant of grace marks. Now the result of these candidates have been revised as 'Fail'.
You are now requested kindly to arrange to return the DMCs of the above candidates so that revised/correct DMCs may be sent to your college."
Roll No. Regd. No. Name of candidate Father's name 873206 97 gj 116 Devender Singh Charan Pal 875579 96 as 325 Ram Niwas Pawar Kanwar Singh
4. A perusal of the aforesaid letter reveals that the University had by itself arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner's result for the B.A. Part-11 examination had been wrongly computed. It was also concluded that the result of the petitioner and one other student of Government College, Jind had been revised from 'compartment' to 'fail'. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the Kurukshetra University, the Principal. Government College, Jind was asked to arrange to return the Detailed Marks Certificate issued to the petitioner to enable it to issue a revised/corrected Details Marks Certificate. A copy of the communication dated 04.09.2000 addressed by the Kurukshetra University to the Principal, Government College, Jind does not reveal that Principal was required to serve the aforesaid letter either on the petitioner or on the other student affected by the change of the result.
5. It would also be pertinent to notice that after the declaration of the result of the petitioner originally on 10.08.2000, by which he had been placed under compartment, he was eligible for admission to the B.A. Part-III course. On the strength of the certificate issued to the petitioner on 10.08.2000, the petitioner applied and was allowed admission 10 the B.A. Part-111 course at Government College, Jind.
6. A detailed written statement has been filed indicating the basis of the issuance of the letter dated 04.09.2000. It is stated in the written statement that for the examination to be held in April, 2000, the Kurukshetra University had introduced a new scheme. The maximum marks awardable under the new scheme for Geography theory paper was 70; and the maximum marks for Geography practical paper was 30, whereas, under the old scheme, maximum marks for the said theory paper were 60 and maximum marks for the said practical paper were 30. To pass the Geography theory paper, under the new scheme, a candidate was required to obtain a minimum of 24 marks, whereas, under the old scheme to pass the said theory paper, a candidate had to obtain only 21 marks. The dealing clerk while computing the result of the petitioner by an inadvertent mistake applied the old scheme; thus, despite the fact that the petitioner obtained only 21 marks after availing full benefit of grace marks, he was declared as having passed in the Geography theory paper, whereas, the petitioner having obtained less than 24 marks even after availing full benefit of grace marks could not be declared to have passed.
7. The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the facts narrated above is that the action of the University in changing his result from 'compartment' to 'fail' adversely affected his civil rights. Before the aforesaid action could be taken by which the petitioner's civil rights were affected, it was incumbent upon the authority to follow the rules of natural justice by affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Since the aforesaid course of action had not been adopted, the order dated 04.09.2000 by which the Kurukshetra University had sought to change the result of the petitioner from compartment' to 'fail' must be deemed to have been passed arbitrarily and was as such illegal in the eyes of law. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Curt in the The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. and others v. Kumari Chilra Srivastava and others, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1039, Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision :-
"We agree with the High Court that the impugned order imposed a penalty. The petitioner had appeared in the examination and answered all the question papers. According to her she had passed. To deny her the fruits of her labour cannot but be called a penalty. We are unable to appreciate the contention that the Board in "cancelling her examination" was not exercising quasi- judicial functions. The learned counsel urges that this would be casting a heavy burden on the Board. Principles of natural justice are to some minds burdensome but this price-a small price indeed-has to be paid if we desire a society governed by the rule of law."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment rendered by this court in Moneet Goyal v. The Punjabi University through its Registrar and others, 1994(4) SCT 174 (P&H) : 1994(4) RSJ 194, wherein, it has been held that a degree awarded to a candidate cannot be withdrawn before affording an opportunity to the candidate to show cause against the intended action and since in the aforesaid case, the impugned order had been passed without giving the petitioner any opportunity to explain his position, the same was found to be unacceptable in law.
9. As against the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University that the first certificate issued to the petitioner dated 10.08.2000 was withdrawn on 04.09.2000 and as such no rights can be deemed to have been vested in the petitioner in a span of approximately 25 days. It is stated that the letter dated 04.09,2000 was issued to the Principal, Government College, Jind for onward transmission to the petitioner. In the written statement filed by the Principal, Government College, Jind, it is averred that the letter dated 04.09.2000 was pasted on the notice board of the Government College. Jind. but the petitioner did not respond thereto. On the basis of the facts narrated above, it is submitted that the petitioner was wholly aware of the order passed by the University dated 04.09.2000 and he had ample opportunity to respond to the same before the supplementary examination in October, 2000. He did not avail the opportunity to do so, it does not lie in his mouth to point an accusing finger either at the institution or at the University.
10. I have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not possible for me to accept that the impugned order dated 04.09.2000 was ever communicated to the petitioner or that he became aware of the same at any stage prior to appearing in the supplementary examination held in October, 2000. If the petitioner's result had, indeed, been changed from 'compartment' to 'fail', he would certainly not have been allowed to appear in the examination held in October, 2000. He would likewise not have been allowed to continue as B.A.Part-III student at the Government College, Jind after 04.09,2000. It is evident from the perusal of the undisputed factual narration recorded in the pleading on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner applied and was allowed to appear in the supplementary examination to be held in October, 2000. He actually appeared in the supplementary examination in October, 2000. The contention on behalf of the Principal, Government College, Jind that the tetter dated 04.09.2000 was affixed on the notice board does not sound to reason. The letter dated 04.09.2000 was not in the nature of a general notice to the students of the aforesaid institution. It only affected the petitioner and one. other candidate. The Principal, Government College, Jind should normally have supplied a copy of the said letter to the two concerned candidates despite the fact that there was no direction contained therein at the behest of the Kuruk-shetra University to supply a copy of the said letter to the affected candidates. It seems that the factum of having affixed the letter dated 04.09.2000 on the no-lice board is a fact asserted to escape responsibility. It is, therefore, not un-reasonable for this court to conclude that the affected candidates including the petitioner were never served with a copy of the letter dated 04.09.2000 and, therefore, had no occasion to make any representation against the same.
11. Additionally, a submission has been made on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-University that no fruitful purpose would be served by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In this behalf, it is stated that the basis for changing the result of the petitioner is the inadvertent mistake committed by the dealing clerk at the time of its computation. The petitioner would have nothing to say when confronted with the factual position expressed in the written statement for altering his result from 'compartment' to 'fail' as per details noticed above. I am afraid that the aforesaid contention advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent is not acceptable in law. In this behalf, reference may be made to the decision rendered by this court in Virendra Chawla v. The Chandigarh Administration and another, 1984(1) S.L.R. 452, wherein, this court noticed as under :-
"... Their Lordships in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 136 approvingly quoted the decision in R. v. Thames Magistrates' court ex.p. Polemis, (1974) 1 W.L.R. 1371 in which the applicant obtained an order of certiorari to quash his conviction by a stipendiary magistrate on the ground that he had no sufficient time to prepare his defence and the Divisional Court rejected the argument that in its discretion, it ought to refuse relief because the applicant had no defence to the charge. We may further quote in this regard the following significant observation of O. Chin-nappa Reddy. J., who delivered the opinion for the Bench:
"In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It will comes from a person who had denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced."
12. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is not sufficient for the respondents to plead as against the claim made by the petitioner that even if he had been afforded an opportunity to refute the conclusions drawn against him, he would have no reasonable explanation to lender i.e. even if he had been afforded such an opportunity, he would have had nothing to say. The aforesaid contention advanced on behalf of the respondents being mis-conceived as perthe legal position expressed in the decision noticed above is declined.
13. Having arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was not served with a copy of the letter dated 04.09.2000 and also had not been aforded an opportunity to show cause before his civil rights were adversely affected by altering his result from 'compartment' to 'fail', it is inevitable to conclude that the rules of natural justice were not followed. Accordingly, this court has no hesitation in concluding that the action of the Kurukshetra University while issuing the letter dated 04.09.2000 was clearly arbitrary and as such was violative to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
14. The order dated 04.09.2000 being illegal is accordingly set aside, thereby, allowing one of the prayers of the petitioner. The second prayer of the petitioner is merely consequential. Having quashed the letter dated 04.09.2000, it is natural to direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner for the paper in which he had appeared during the supplementary examinations conducted in October, 2000.
15. Petition allowed.