MICHAEL Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a III LL.B., law student who took the examination held for the academic year 1984-85 in May, 1985. At the end of the examinations conducted by the university of Bangalore - 1st respondent herein, the petitioner has obtained 32 marks in Drafting, Pleading and Conveyancing, 8 marks In Labour Law and 26 marks in Administrative Law. He applied for revaluation of his answer scripts in all the three subjects. After revaluation in accordance with the prevailing ordinance of the University-1st respondent; his results have remained, in those subjects, unchanged. Aggrieved by the same, he has approached this Court inter alia contending that the method of referring to only one external valuer as opposed to the earlier practice of referring to more than one examiner, by the amendment brought about by the Syndicate is void as the Syndicate does not have the power to amend the ordinance in the matter of conducting examinations. Another limb of the above contention is that the Academic Council of the University alone must deal with matters concerning valuation, appointment of examiners etc.

(2.) Reliance has been placed in support of his argument on the language of Sections 25, 27 and 39 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. The thrust of the argument is that the Syndicate can only make ordinance providing for the physical conduct of examinations and no more. Unless the Academic Council makes regulations providing for revaluation, ordinance made by the Syndicate cannot be sustained and therefore, it is contended that the regulation of revaluation itself is incompetent.

(3.) Before examining the merits of this contention, let us see what happens if we assume that the arguments advanced are correct and upheld. The effect will be the relevant ordinance providing for revaluation becomes invalid and non-existent. In the result, the student will have no right to have his script revalued. Admittedly, the Academic Council has not made any regulations for revaluation. This Court certainly cannot compel the Academic Council to make such regulations.