Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) The department had introduced qualifications higher than the minimum prescribed in the University Calendar for admission to the course, thereby excluded the petitioners to seek admission;

(ii) That giving weightage of 5% marks to the dependent sons/daughters of the Punjab University employees in service or retired, was arbitrary and discriminatory; and

(iii) That the formula laid down by the authorities for normalisation of marks obtained in the minimum qualifying examination as well as in the higher qualification was also arbitrary. The learned single Judge accepted all the above three points raised on behalf of the writ petitioners and allowed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the University has come up in appeals.

(c) Up to 4% for distinction in co-cur-ricular activities in the following items (1 % for each item):

(i) N.C.C. (B or C Certificates)

(ii) N.S.S. (0, A or B grades or certificate of merit for winning First or Second position)."

It was clause (b) quoted above, which was challenged before the learned single Judge.

7. The learned single Judge held that since the University Calendar provided the minimum qualifications as B. Lib. or Punjab University Post-graduate Diploma in Library Science with 50% marks. The University could not lay down higher qualifications than the one prescribed in the University Calendar and, therefore, the notice of admission laying down higher qualifications for admission to M.Lib. was bad in law. It was further held that giving weightage of 5% marks to the dependent so us/daughters of the Punjab University employees was arbitrary and further that there was nothing wrong with normalisation of marks obtained by the candidates, but the normalisation should have been only of the marks of the minimum qualifying examination and not of any higher qualification.

18. Now coming to the normalisation criteria adopted by the University. The learned single Judge has not struck down the criteria of normalisation, but he has observed that normalisation should be only in the marks of the minimum qualifying examination and not of the higher examination. Just to understand what normalisation of marks is, it may be illustrated that different Universi-,ties have different maximum marks of a particular examination or even in the Punjab University, maximum marks for B.A./B.Sc. are different. For example, in Punjab University the maximum marks for M.A./ M.Sc./M.Com. are 800: whereas in some other Universities this varies from 1000 to 2400. What the University does is that it finds out how many marks proportionately would be out of 800 and then normalise marks of that candidate so that both can be compared. What the University has done is that first it has normalised the marks of minimum qualifying examination of the various candidates and then added to them the marks out of 800 of M.A./M.Sc. and then found out the percentage. Following illustration would clarify what we have stated above:--

POSITION WITHOUT NORMALISATION Marks in B.L.I.S. Marks in M.A./ M.Sc./ M.Com.

Total of Cols. 2 and 3 (Average) Final % age 480= 60% 800= 50% 1280 x 100 53.33%         POSITION AFTER NORMALISATION 480= 60% 480= 50% 880 x 100% 55%         For the view we have taken on point No. 1 that higher qualifications could be laid down, it follows fortiorari that normalisation not only of marks of the minimum qualifying exam had to be done but it had to be done so also of marks of the higher qualification and then added together. So we hold that the learned single Judge was not correct to restrict the normalisation only of the marks of the minimum qualifying exam.