Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Fateh Kumari Sisodia vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 25 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR1997RAJ191, 1997(2)WLC541, 1997(1)WLN219
ORDER J.C. Verma, J.
1. The petitioner had applied for M.A. Hindi Examination a Two Years Course of Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur (hereinafter called 'the University'). She appeared in M.A. (Previous), Examination under Roll No. 92019 and secured first position by obtaining 251 marks out of 400 marks. After clearing the M.A. (Previous) Examination she appeared in the M.A. (Final) Examination, the result of which was declared on 14-3-1993 and in the result so declared, it was shown that she had secured 226 marks out of 400 marks in the M.A. (Final) Examination and, thus, the total marks in the M.A. (Previous) and M.A. (Final) Examinations came to 477 marks out of 800 marks. It is stated by the petitioner that in one of the subjects in the M.A. (Final) Examination i.e. 'Hindi Natya Evam Ranga-manch' in the result sheet it is shown that she had secured 40 marks out of 100 marks. She had apprehension that by way of inadvertence or otherwise or by way of mistake the totalling and computation of marks had not been done properly and, therefore, she applied for re-evaluation of her answer-book of the said subject. The University had initially informed her that there was no change in the marks obtained by her in the said subject but later on immediately she was informed that on re-checking of totalling and re-evaluation there is a total increase of 11 marks in the said subject i.e. she had obtained 51 marks out of 100 marks and, thus, the total of the marks obtained by her in the M.A. (Previous) and M.A. (Final) Examinations had come out to be 488 out of 800 marks. Earlier at the declaration of the result when she is said to have obtained 477 marks she was placed at second position in the merit list and student having obtained a higher aggregate of 487 marks was said to be the first position holder. After re-totalling and re-evaluation (remarking) the aggregate marks of the petitioner became higher to the student who had obtained the first position. Therefore, the petitioner approached the University to correct the position list and merit and also to award her the Gold Medal, which is normally given to the student who stands first in the examination. She was informed that because of certain instructions, if the marks are increased because of re-evaluation then in that situation she cannot be given the first position, despite the fact that she stands higher than the student who has got the first position. Aggrieved by the communication dated 9-6-1994, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition on the ground that her total aggregate marks comes to 488 out of 800 marks and the student lower in merit i.e. 487 marks out of 800 has been awarded the Gold Medal.
2. A written-statement has been filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the position as stated above is not denied. It is admitted by the University that there was a mistake in the totalling of such subject and instead of 48 marks by mistake 40 marks had been mentioned in the details of the marks and, therefore, her marks were increased by way of removing the mistake in the total by 8 marks. It was further admitted that the total marks after re-evaluation in such subject had come to 51 i.e. 40 marks initially awarded to the petitioner were raised to 48 marks by correcting the wrong totalling and on re-evaluation the total marks were raised to 51.
3. A contention has been raised that, the University had issued certain instructions wherein it has been provided that the candidate shall not be eligible for award of Gold Medal consequent upon the revision in his/ her result, due to re-evaluation/improvement. As per the written statement of the University, the petitioner after re-totalling and after correcting the total in that subject had obtained aggregate of 485 marks and if 3 marks after re-evaluation are also added then the position of the petitioner goes higher to the student who was awarded the Gold Medal.
4. From the facts of the case, the situation becomes clear that before the re-evaluation the petitioner had obtained 485 marks and another candidate had obtained 487 marks out of 800 marks but on re-evaluation another three marks were added to the total of the petitioner, thus, raising her total to be that of 488 marks out of 800 marks.
5. The contention of the petitioner that she is entitled to be placed at number one position after re-evaluation is to be accepted for the reason that if the University allows re-evaluation of the answer-books and on re-evaluation the University does find the raising of the marks, the credit must go to the student who has obtained such higher marks. In the present case the record of the University was incorrectly made and instead of 48 actual marks in the subject a wrong total was mentioned as 40 marks and later on re-totalling the marks in the subject were raised to 51 marks.
6. Counsel for the petitioner relies on a Single Bench judgment delivered in Ram Karan v. The University of Raj Jaipur (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1268/87, decided on 9-9-1996), wherein in similar circumstances and under the same provision of debarring a person to be put on higher position after revaluation of marks, the petitioner in that case was given the benefit. The rule in that case was also similar to the one as in the present case. In Ram Karan's case, the rule was as under :--
"(11) The increase in marks obtained by a candidate as a result of revaluation shall not be taken into account for preparing the merit list of first 10 candidates standing in order of merit at an examination."
7. It was held by the learned single Judge while interpreting Rule 11 as under:--
"It was submitted that the result would become final only after the revaluation is over otherwise applying for revaluation would be meaning-less. There is lot of substance in this submission. Ordinance 157A(11) is absolutely unreasonable and liable to be struck down the candidate would not be at fault if there is mistake committed by the examiner in giving or totalling the marks. If this Clause (11) of the Ordinance 157A is allowed to stand then it will frustrate the very purpose of revaluation. Clause 11 is wholly unreasonable and, therefore, liable to be struck down and accordingly, it is declared to be invalid and struck down."
"Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the merit list for by including the marks obtained by him in the revaluation. Now the question is what will happen to the gold medal awarded to the first candidate who secured highest marks before revaluation. This petition is of 1987, therefore, it would not be proper at this stage to direct the respondent to withdraw the gold medal from the first candidate and award to the petitioner. However, the respondent can certainly be directed to award gold medal to the petitioner in addition to the gold medal awarded to the first candidate. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to present gold medal to the petitioner for securing the highest marks in M.Sc. Final Examination in Botany held in March, 1986."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rajendrakumar Chandrakant Nadkarni v. University of Bombay, 1950-91 (3) AIFC 650, wherein in the Ordinance\Regulations of the University of Bombay a similar clause was incorporated, which is reproduced as under:--
"The revised marks obtained by a candidate after revaluation as accepted by the University shall be taken into account for the purpose of amendment of his results in accordance with the rules of the University in that behalf, but these marks shall not be taken into account for the purpose of award of scholarships, prizes, medals and/or the order of merit."
9. It was held by the Bombay High Court as under:--
"If revaluation is permitted and if ranking in so far as class is concerned is awarded to candidates who get the benefit of revaluation, there is no reason to restrict the result to the mere declaration of a class. The full benefit to the vindicated candidate has to be awarded and his marks have to be taken into account for the purpose of scholarship, prizes, medals and/or the order or merit. Agreeing with the learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, I make the rule absolute by quashing Ex.F and confirming the correctness of Ex.D. i.e. the special certificate awarded on 17-8-1983. Rule in these terms is made absolute with parties being left to bear their own costs."
10. In another judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Anjay Bansal v. Bangalore University, AIR 1990 Kant 225 a similar rule made by the University was declared to be ultra vires and the notification to the fact that no revised rank will be declared in respect of those who get benefit in the revaluation (review) and no incidental benefit which accrue due to the revaluation (review) will be granted except declaration of class was quashed with the direction to the University to award rank to the petitioner in that case and to place the petitioner in that case at a proper rank.
11. In view of the law discussed above, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and a direction is given to the respondents to put the petitioner in due merit in accordance with the revised mark-sheet by allocating total 488 marks and she may be declared to be at first position holder in the merit and the rule formulated in regard to the conditions of award for medals so far as it debars the candidate to be eligible for award of Gold Medal consequent upon the revision in the result due to revaluation, is held to be ultra vires, by fully agreeing with the judgment of the learned single Judge delivered in the case of Ram Karan referred to above.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to include the name of the petitioner in the merit list and award the Gold Medal to her and in case the University does not want to withdraw the gold medal from the candidate who had lower marks than the petitioner, the University is directed to award Gold Medal to the petitioner in addition to the gold medal already awarded to the candidate who had been put earlier at first position for the examination in question. No orders as to costs.