Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shiesta Sharma vs H.P. University And Others on 18 March, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.10164 of 2023
Decided on 18.03.2024
.
_________________________________________________________
Shiesta Sharma Petitioner
Versus
H.P. University and others. Respondents
_________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner : Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and
Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate
General, for respondents No.2 & 3.
_________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
By way of instant petition, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein following main reliefs:
"i). That the impugned orders Annexures-P-5 and P-
7, dated 14.06.2023 and 06.11.2023, respectively, may kindly be quashed and set aside;
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2024 20:30:55 :::CIS 2 ii) That respondent No.1-University may kindly be directed to carry out necessary
corrections/rectification in the MBBS Final Prof. .
(Part-1) result qua the petitioner against Roll No.259, by awarding her 71 marks in the practical examination of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology instead of 54 marks and thereafter;
iii) Respondent No.1-University may kindly be directed to issue the revised Result-cum-Detailed Marks Certificate in favour of the petitioner at the earliest."
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner, who was admitted to MBBS Degree Course in respondent No.2-Medical College in the year 2019, participated in MBBS, 3rd Prof. (Part-1) Annual Examination in the month of January, 2023 under examination Roll No.2593. As per the date sheet of the examination issued by respondent-University, the theory examinations of third Professional (Part-1) Annual Examination were held w.e.f.
24.01.2023 upto 31.01.2023 and the practical examinations were held in the first week of February, 2023. For the purpose of conducting examination, respondent No.2-Principal of College, constituted the committees of external examiners and internal examiners, who after examining the practical work of the students, awarded marks, which were ultimately to be included in the marks obtained by the candidates ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2024 20:30:55 :::CIS 3 in written examination. Once the written examination was over, the marks of theory and practical examinations were sent to respondent-
.
University for publication of the final result. After sending the marks of practicals by the department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, respondent-University noticed the discrepancy in the final result of 29 students (Roll No.2591-2691) of MBBS Third Prof. (Part-1) and as such, respondent-college was telephonically asked on 25.03.2023, to rectify the mistake. After having received the aforesaid telephonic call from respondent-University, respondent No.3-College, conducted an inquiry and found that there was a copying/transcription error, wherein the final result of the students was prepared on Excel-sheet, which was copied to Word Pad to prepare final copy of the result, as a result thereof, wrong marks came to be sent to the respondent-University with regard to practical examination. Pursuant to aforesaid telephonic information received by the college from respondent -University, Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Dr. Radhakrishnan Government Medical College, Hamirpur, H.P. sent a communication to Assistant Registrar (Exam-3) H.P. University, intimating thereby that there was clerical mistake in the sum total of students in practical examination marks qua Roll Nos. 2591-2619, held ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2024 20:30:55 :::CIS 4 on 10/12 February, 2023. Along with aforesaid communication, college also submitted result of students prepared after correcting the clerical .
mistake. However, fact remains that respondent-University, without taking note of the aforesaid communication sent by the respondent-
college, proceeded to declare the result (Annexure P-1) on 25.04.2023, wherein petitioner Shiesta Sharma, (Roll No.2593) was shown to have obtained 1870 marks in total. Immediately after declaration of result, Controller of Examination, respondent-university, also issued mark sheet (Annexure P-2) wherein in the subject of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, petitioner was shown to have obtained 61 marks in written examination and 54 marks in practical, as a result thereof, petitioner was shown to have obtained 115 marks.
3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the present petition and further canvassed by Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though as per corrected result sheet sent by Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology of Dr. RKGMC, Hamirpur, petitioner was awarded 71 marks out of 100 marks in practical, but, while issuing mark sheet, she has been awarded only 54 marks qua practical examination, as a result thereof, she has been shown to have obtained 17 marks ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2024 20:30:55 :::CIS 5 less than actual marks obtained by her on account of aforesaid correction in result sheet sent by the respondent-university.
.
4. Since, despite there being repeated requests, respondent
-university, failed to issue correct mark list, petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.
5. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant petition, all the respondents have filed reply, wherein, facts, as have been noticed herein above, have not been disputed, rather stand admitted.
6. Respondents No.2 & 3, in their reply filed under the signatures of Principal, Dr. RKGMC, Hamirpur, H.P. have categorically stated that there was a copying/transcription error, wherein the final result of the students was prepared on the excel sheet, but while copying the same to the word pad to prepare final copy of result, certain errors crept in, as a result thereof, correct marks of practical actually awarded to the petitioner could not be conveyed to the respondent-
university. It has been further stated in the reply filed by respondents No.2 & 3 that immediately after having come to know about the aforesaid discrepancy, result was corrected and reported to university for necessary action on 27,03.2023. Though respondent-university in ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2024 20:30:55 :::CIS 6 its reply has stated that discrepancy in the final result of 29 students i.e. Roll No.2591 to 2619 was pointed out by it to the college enabling it to .
rectify the same, but needful was not done well within the time and final result was declared on the basis of marks of Theory and practical examination sent by the university on 14th February, 2023. While fairly admitting the factum with regard to receipt of corrected result sheets, it has been averred on behalf of the respondent-university that since same were not signed by all the Examiners (internal and external), same could not be taken into consideration. Apart from above, reliance has also been placed by the respondent-university on Notification dated 18th January, 2021, issued by the Controller of Examination, vide which Executive Council of University, in its meeting held on 30.03.2021, while issuing fresh comprehensive guidelines to all the Principals of the Colleges with regard to revised internal assessment, has clarified that no correction/rectification shall be allowed qua marks obtained in theory, practical and internal statement after declaration of the result, especially once the awards are verified by the Principals.
7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the petitioner herein, after having participated in final ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2024 20:30:55 :::CIS 7 examination held w.e.f. 24.01.2023 to 31.01.2023, also participated in practical examination held in first week of February, 2023. Reply filed .
by respondents No.2 & 3 as well as other documents placed on record clearly reveal that the petitioner had actually obtained 71 marks in practical in the subject of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, but inadvertently, respondent-college, while sending marks of theory and practical examination to respondent-university for preparing final result, showed the same as "54 marks", as a result thereof, 17 marks less then the actually received by the petitioner in practical came to be reflected in the final mark list issued by the respondent-university. It is also not in dispute that immediately after receipt of marks of theory and practical, respondent-university, itself noticed the discrepancy in the final result of 29 students and pointed out the same to the respondent-college.
Respondent-college, after having noticed aforesaid discrepancy, immediately rectified its mistake and submitted fresh list containing the correct marks obtained by the petitioner in practical, but since same were not signed by both the Examiners, i.e. internal and external, respondent-university proceeded to declare the final result on the basis of incorrect result sheet prepared by respondent-college.
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2024 20:30:55 :::CIS 88. If the reply filed by respondents-university is perused in its entirety, it has been nowhere denied that petitioner herein had actually .
obtained 71 marks in practical, but the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 & 3, for correction in mark sheet has been denied on the ground that no correction of marks is permitted after declaration of result. Besides above, one objection with regard to signatures of both the Examiners, i.e. internal and external, has also been taken by respondent-university.
9. No doubt, reply of respondent-university clearly suggests that respondents No.2 & 3 were negligent in preparing result and thereafter took remedial measures within shortest possible time, but now the question, which needs to be determined, is "whether on account of negligence or mistake, if any of respondents No.2 & 3, petitioner herein can be made to suffer or not." At no point of time, petitioner committed any mistake, rather she after having put in her sincere hard work, secured good marks in practical, i.e. 71, but respondent-college while sending result to the respondent-university, wrongly showed the sum of practical marks to be 54 instead of 71.
10. Leaving everything aside, if the result sent by respondent-
university at the first instance, i.e. Annexure R-1, is perused in its ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2024 20:30:55 :::CIS 9 entirety, it clearly reveals that though department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology showed the petitioner to have got 71 marks in total in .
practical, but while copying final result of the students from excel sheet to word pad, wrongly printed the same as 42 and 12 against the columns of practical and viva voce, respectively. It is not in dispute that after being pointed out by the respondent-university, respondent-college rectified its mistake and forwarded the newly prepared result sheet, but the same was not taken into consideration by respondent-university, for the reasons that same was not signed by both the examiners. Since, respondent-university was fully aware that on account of aforesaid discrepancy, if not permitted to be rectified, serious prejudice shall be caused to the students including the petitioner, it ought to have again asked respondent-college to rectify the aforesaid mistake, but in the present case, respondent-university straightway proceeded to declare the result.
11. No doubt, Notification dated 18.06.2021, Annexures R-1-3, pressed into service by Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned Counsel for respondent-university, suggests that the result once declared, cannot be altered ,but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be considered. As ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2024 20:30:55 :::CIS 10 has been discussed hereinabvoe, at no point of time, there was negligence, if any, on the part of the petitioner, rather entire confusion .
arose on account of misprinting of result at the first instance by respondents No.2 & 3, but for that, petitioner cannot be made to suffer.
Otherwise also, decision taken vide Notification dated 18.06.2021, as noticed hereinabvoe, can be relaxed in genuine cases, as is the case of the petitioner, especially when there is nothing in the statute of the university, which suggests that in any eventuality, result once declared, cannot be altered or changed.
12. Since, in the case at hand, petitioner had no hand in the preparation of result and she, in fact, had obtained 71 marks in practical and viva-voce, there appears to be no impediment for this Court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct respondent-university to rectify its mistake by issuing fresh mark sheet to the petitioner thereby showing 71 marks in practical and viva-voce in the subject of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology.
13. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and respondent-university is directed to issue fresh mark sheet to the petitioner thereby awarding 71 marks qua practical and viva-voce in the subject of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, expeditiously, ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2024 20:30:55 :::CIS 11 preferably, within a period of two weeks. Impugned orders dated 14.06.2023 and 06.11.2023, Annexures-P-5 and P-7 are quashed and .
set aside.
Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms alongwith all pending applications.
18th March, 2024 ( Sandeep Sharma )
(reena) r Judge
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2024 20:30:55 :::CIS