LAWS(SC)-2003-5-51

SAYYED AQUEEL ARIF Vs. UNIVERSITY OF PUNE

Decided On May 01, 2003
Sayyed Aqueel Arif Appellant
V/S
UNIVERSITY OF PUNE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant joined the first year MBBS in the third respondent medical college affiliated to the first respondent University on 19-8-1992. On 8-4-1994 the first respondent University issued a circular by which Ordinance 134-A-B was framed laying down the procedure for verification and revaluation of marks. The material portions thereof, for our purpose are as under:

(2.) The appellant appeared for the first MBBS examination in May 1994, but failed in three subjects Biochemistry, Physiology and Anatomy. He again appeared in the examination in October 1994 and also in May 1995, but did not pass, He cleared his Biochemistry paper by appearing again in October 1995. He failed to clear the Physiology and Anatomy papers in the attempt which he took in May 1996. He did not take the examination in October 1996. The appellant took his last chance for appearing in the examination in May 1997 and cleared the paper in Anatomy, but failed in Physiology by getting 84 marks out of 200 in which the minimum marks required for passing was 100.

(3.) The appellant applied for revaluation by submitting a composite application for verification and revaluation of his marks. On 25-7-1997, the appellant was informed by the Assistant Registrar of the first respondent University that, as a result of the verification, he had earned four additional marks making a total of 88 marks out of 200 in the subject of Physiology. On 30-8-1997, the first respondent University informed the appellant that after revaluation there was no change in his marks in Physiology. On the appellant's making queries with the Controller of Examination, the appellant was informed that although on verification he had secured sixteen more marks and his marks upon revaluation came to 104, since the increase was less than 10% as required under clause (7) of Ordinance 134-A-B, no change would be effected in the marks secured by him in the subject of Physiology. The appellant entered into correspondence with the first respondent University pleading for an increase in the number of marks in the subject of Physiology, but failed to persuade the University.