Bombay High Court
Swati Shantaram Bagde vs The Controller Of Examination, ... on 8 March, 2017
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
27.wpl.626.17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 626 OF 2017
Ms. Swati Shantaram Bagde ]
Indian Inhabitant residing at ]
B/204, Rugved Bldg, Gokul ]
Township, Boling Road, ]
Virar (West), Palghar 401303 ] ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Controller of Examination, ]
University of Mumbai, Examination ]
Section, Commerce Unit, ]
st
M. J. Phule Bhavan, 1 Floor, ]
Room No. 36, Vidyanagari Campus, ]
Santacruz (East) Mumbai - 400098 ]
2. University of Mumbai ]
st
M. J. Phule Bhavan, 1 Floor, ]
Room No. 36, Vidyanagari Campus, ]
Santacruz (East) Mumbai - 400098 ]
3. The Principal, ]
Siddharth College of Law, ]
348, Anand Bhavan, ]
D. R. Dadabhai Naoroji Road. ] ... Respondents
...
Mr. D. V. Deokar i/b Mr. Radhakrishna Jha for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Habeeb 1/20
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:30 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc
Mr. Chandrakant Y. Talwatkar, Office Superintendent of Siddharth
College of Law.
Mr. Deepak J. Mane, Clerk of Siddharth College of Law.
CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &
PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
DATE : 8th MARCH 2017
JUDGMENT (Per PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.):
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. By consent of counsel for the respective parties, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
3. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the communication dated 30th January 2017, issued by the Respondent No.1. The petitioner also seeks direction to be issued to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith declare the withheld result of Habeeb 2/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:30 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc the petitioner of having passed the 6th semester of 3rd year LLB course for the academic year 2014-15.
4. The factual matrix relevant for adjudication of the issues involved in this petition is as follows;
(a) The petitioner is a student of respondent no. 3 college.
She applied for admission in law faculty of three years course and secured admission in the year 2012-13.
(b) The petitioner passed her 1 st and 2nd year LLB in the first attempt which is evident from the mark-sheet annexed to the petition. The course was conducted by the respondent no. 2 University.
(c) After attending lectures for the third year and on clearing the Vth semester examination the petitioner appeared for practical examination conducted by respondent no. 3 on 12th March 2015 and 13th March 2015. The said fact is supported by the attendance- Habeeb 3/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:30 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc sheet of the practical examination conducted by respondent no. 3. She passed in practical examination of Drafting Pleading and Conveyancing and secured 76 marks out of 100. She also passed in the practical examination of Moot Court and secured 70 marks out of 100.
(d) The petitioner appeared for the final 6th Semester of 3rd Year LLB course conducted by respondent no. 2 University in the month of April 2015. She was shocked to know that in the statement of marks which were made available in the office of respondent no.3 on or about 23rd July 2015, there was an endorsement "ADC" that is admission cancelled, although the petitioner has appeared and passed in practical examination as well as all the 4 subjects in the written examination.
(e) The petitioner therefore, approached the Registry of respondent no. 3 and informed them that she had Habeeb 4/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:30 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc appeared in the practical examination and therefore, she should have been declared pass. The respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 31 st July 2015, informed the respondent no. 1 that the petitioner is the bonafide student of 3rd Year LLB of the said college and that she had appeared in the March 2015 practical examination and that she has secured the marks as stated above. It was also stated that the respondent no. 3 had failed to mention the marks against her name in the practical examination sheet submitted to respondent no. 1 and
2. The request was made to add the marks of practical examination in the mark-sheet of the petitioner.
(f) Since there was no response to the said letter, the respondent no. 3 forwarded another letter dated 20 th August 2015 with similar request. The petitioner also made a similar request vide her letter dated 20th August 2015.
(g) The petitioner kept on following up with the Habeeb 5/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc respondents for declaration of her results. By letter dated 26th February 2016, the respondent no.1 intimated the respondent no. 3 and the other colleges that, on account of delay in forwarding the marks of the practical training of the students from I, II, III and IV semester, their admissions were declared cancelled. However, after deliberations the respondent no.1 had called upon a meeting with such students on 2nd March 2016 and they were called upon to attend the said meeting alongwith relevant documents. Vide communication dated 15th March 2016, the respondent no. 1 intimated the respondent no. 3 and other colleges that the candidates mentioned there in were allowed to appear for practical training of I, II, III and IV subject examination of LLB (Sem. II, IV & VI) and BLS (Sem. VI, VIII & X) on condition that the decision of Management Council held in due course will be communicated to them which will be binding on Habeeb 6/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc colleges and that the results of the said candidates will be kept in reserve till the matter is resolved. The name of the petitioner was not appearing in the said communication.
(h) Vide letter dated 19th March 2016, the respondent no. 1 has informed the respondent no. 3 and other colleges that since the college had delayed in forwarding the marks of the students in the practical training, the sub- committee appointed by the Board of Examination has not accepted the same and therefore, the result of the said students including the petitioner were disallowed.
(i) The respondent no.3 by letter dated 6 th April 2016 requested the Vice Chancellor, University of Bombay to consider the statement of the staff member about the lapse in forwarding the marks and declare the result of the petitioner. The petitioner also forwarded the letter dated 7th April 2016 with a similar request. Since there Habeeb 7/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc was no response, the petitioner vide letter dated 23 rd March 2016 requested respondent no. 3 to take up the matter with respondent no.2. The respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 29th April 2016, informed the respondent no. 3 that, since the said college has not submitted the practical training marks, of the students of the said college qua First Year (Sem. II) and Second Year (Sem. IV) conducted in April 2015, their results were declared as cancelled with remark ADC. Thereafter, the college has communicated the marks and hence as per Administrative decision fine of Rs.5000/- has been imposed on the principal of college and fine of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed on college and on depositing the said fine, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 will declare the result of the said students.
(j) The petitioner had forwarded her application to the Students Grievance Readressal Committee of respondent no. 2 on 11th April 2016 and reiterated her Habeeb 8/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc request. The grievance committee vide letter dated 24th May 2016, intimated the respondent no. 1 about the decision taken by the committee in the meeting held on 12th May 2016. The decision taken by the committee was quoted in the said communication, the translated version reads as follows ;
"In the said meeting the student and professor of the college were present. The say of student and the professor of the college was heard. The Committee has noticed that in the case the entire fault is that of the college. This was also earlier placed before Board of Examination. The Student Grievance Redressal Committee is recommending that taking into consideration the interest of the student the above said case be placed before Board of Examination for its review."
(k) The respondent no. 3 deposited the fine amount with respondent no. 2. Thereafter vide communication dated 5th October 2016, the reserved result of 4 students of respondent no. 3 were declared. However, the petitioners result was not declared. The petitioner forwarded her representation dated 1 st December 2016 and requested respondent nos. 2 to 10 to look into the Habeeb 9/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc matter. The Registrar of respondent no. 2 made the following remarks.
"Please do the needful. Resubmission to the BOE be the alternative. Since the similar four students has been considered and her case is not considered".
(l) Inspite of recommendations and the remarks of the Registrar the respondent no. 1 issued the communication dated 30th January 2017, stating that the request of the petitioner for declaring her result of 3rd year LLB course had in April 2015 is rejected. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. We have also perused the documents annexed to the petition such as attendance-sheet, the marks allotted in practical examination as well as written examination and the communications issued by the respondents.
Habeeb 10/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the victim of circumstances. He further submitted that she has passed in practical as well as written examination. He further submitted that the other students have been granted relief and petitioner has been discriminated by respondents. The petitioner has suffered mental agony for last two years for no fault of her. He further submitted that for the lapse or inadvertence on the part of the respondent no. 3 who have admitted their mistake, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. He further submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide student who had attended all the lectures and by putting hard work had cleared her examination. He submitted that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 ought to have considered the request for declaration of result.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out the factual aspects of the matter and submitted that the respondents are required to take such decisions since the statement Habeeb 11/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc of marks of practical examination was not forwarded by the respondent no. 3. He further submitted that to avoid any malpractice, the respondent no. 1 is required to adopt such approach, whenever, the marks of practical examination are not forwarded by the respective colleges or the same are forwarded belatedly after declaration of results. However, Mr. Rodrigues the learned counsel for the respondent in his customary fairness has submitted that the respondents are not attributing any malafides to the lapse on the part of the respondent no. 3.
8. On going through the documents on record and after hearing the submissions advanced by the respective counsels, it is noted that the petitioner is the bonafide student of the respondent no. 3. She had attended the lectures of 3 rd year LLB course throughout and appeared for the 5th Semester examination in the year 2014 and passed in all the subjects. She was issued the hall ticket by the respondent no. 2 University to appear for 6th semester examination of the LLB course. The petitioner appeared for practical examination conducted by respondent no. 3 on 12 th March 2015 and Habeeb 12/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc 13th March 2015. The said fact is fortified by the attendance-sheet of the practical examination which has been annexed to the petition and not disputed by the respondents. The record also reveals that the petitioner has passed in practical examination of Drafting Pleading and Conveyancing (DPC) and scored 76 marks out of 100 marks. She also passed in practical examination of moot court and scored 70 marks out of 100 marks. This fact is corroborated by the common mark-sheet for the practical examination. It is also noted that the petitioner had appeared for all the four subjects of the final 6th Semester of 3rd year LLB course examination conducted by respondent no. 2 in the month of April 2015. The petitioner was however shocked that her result was not declared. However, on verifying the statement of marks it was noticed that there was remark "ADC" i.e. admission cancelled, though the petitioner has passed in practical examination as well as all the four subjects in written examination. It is apparent that the petitioner has to suffer without any fault on her part. She was required to run from pillar to post for seeking justice and made correspondence with the Habeeb 13/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc respondents by intimating that her result be declared since she has appeared for the practical examination as well as written examination and has cleared all the subjects. It was pointed out that for the lapse on the part of the respondent no. 3 in forwarding her practical examination marks the petitioner should not be victimized.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had appeared for practical examinations conducted on 12th March 2015 and 13th March 2015 and that she has secured the marks as stated above in the said examination. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has passed in all the subjects in the written examination and it is only because the marks of practical examination were not forwarded by the respondent no. 3 to the respondent nos. 1 and 2. There was a remark of ADC viz. admission cancelled. We have taken into consideration the fact that the respondent no. 3 has intimated the respondent no. 1 by letter dated 31 st July 2015 that the petitioner had secured 76 marks in DPC and 70 marks in moot court in the practical examination conducted by respondent no. 3. It was also mentioned that there was a lapse on the part of respondent no. 3 in Habeeb 14/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc mentioning the marks secured by the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 was therefore, requested to add the marks of the petitioner in practical examination. The respondent no. 3 forwarded another letter dated 20th August 2015 to the respondent no. 1 as a reminder to expedite the possible changes in the practical marks of the petitioner as she was trying to appear for the Bar Council Examination for which the mark-sheet is compulsory. The petitioner had also forwarded communications with a request for declaring her results that she has passed in the examination. The respondent no. 3 had also forwarded another letter dated 6 th April 2016 to the Vice Chancellor of the University wherein it was stated that there was a lapse on the part of the staff of the college as they had not entered her marks and therefore, the petitioner's result was not declared by the University. The statement of the concerned clerk is enclosed with the said letter. It is pertinent to note that vide letter dated 29 th April 2016 the respondent no. 1 had intimated the respondent no. 3 that the University had not declared result with a remark ADC in respect to the students of semester IInd and semester IVth on account of not Habeeb 15/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc submitting the marks of practical training held in April 2015 as marks were not forwarded within time by the respondent no. 3. It was further stated that the University administration had taken a decision to issue order of declaration of results of the said students subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- by the college and Rs.5000/- by the professor. Apparently, the respondent no. 3 - college deposited the fine amount as stated above and the results of the four students were declared vide communication dated 5th October 2016. The petitioner has rightly submitted that she was discriminated as the case of the petitioner was identical with other students. It is pertinent to note that prior to declaration of results vide letter dated 15th March 2016, the said students were allowed to appear for practical training examination of LLB on condition that the decision of management council will be communicated to them and also that the results of the said candidates will be kept in reserve till the matter is resolved. Inspite of herculean efforts to convince the respondents a letter dated 30 th January 2017 was issued by respondent no. 1 stating that the request of the petitioner to declare Habeeb 16/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc her results is rejected. We are not convinced with the decision of respondent no. 1. The results of the other students were declared who had appeared for the other semesters. The petitioner was declared ADC although she has passed in the practical as well as the written examination. The petitioner cannot be at loss without her fault, particularly when, there was a mistake on the part of respondent no. 3. similar mistake was condoned by imposing fine and consequently declaring the result of the other students. The bonafides of the petitioner and respondent no. 3 about attending the practical examination by the petitioner are not doubted. The attendance of the said examination is also borne out by the attendance-sheet and the marks obtained by the petitioner. In the circumstances, it would be unjust and arbitrary to withhold the result of the petitioner and or to declare her ADC. The petitioner has already suffered trauma since May 2016.
10. We are alive to the fact that the petitioner was the bonafide student of respondent no. 3 and she has secured good Habeeb 17/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc marks in the practical examination as well as the written examination. The respondent No. 3 had admitted the clerical mistake committed by the staff, on account of which the practical marks were not submitted to the University before declaration of the result of 6th Semester examination. We are also conscious of the fact that the respondent no. 1 have declared the result of the other students by accepting the penalty of Rs.50,000/- from respondent no. 3. We are of the opinion that the agony of the petitioner must come to an end. In the light of the fact that the lapse on the part of the respondent no. 3 was condoned by accepting the fine of Rs.50,000/- for not forwarding the practical examination marks of other four students, we are inclined to impose a fine of Rs.15000/- upon the respondent no. 3 which is to be deposited with the concerned account department of respondent no. 2. We are however not inclined to grant any compensation as prayed by the petitioner. The said prayer is also not seriously pressed by the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner are required to be granted. Habeeb 18/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc
11. Hence we passed the following order.
O R D E R
a) The impugned communication dated 30th January 2017 issued by respondent no. 1 to the petitioner is quashed and set aside.
b) The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to forthwith declare the withheld result of the petitioner of having passed the 6th Semester of the 3rd year LLB course for the academic year 2014-15.
c) The respondent No.3 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.15000/- towards fine for belatedly forwarding the practical examination marks of the petitioner. The said amount be deposited in the concerned account department of respondent no. 2 on or before 31st of March 2017.
d) The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to issue the marks-sheet to the petitioner for the 6th Habeeb 19/20 ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc Semester of 3rd year LLB course for the academic year 2014-15.
e) No order as to costs.
f) Petition stands disposed off.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)
Habeeb 20/20
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:31 :::