M G HALDIPURKAR Vs. KARNATAK UNIVERSITY DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner in this case, who has been a law graduate andwho has completed her course of ll.b. in 1988, has filed this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13-4-1989 issued by the vice-chancellor of the respondent-university which has been annexed at Annexure-K to the writ petition. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondent to award the gold medal which she claims to be entitled to get for the ll.b. examination held in April 1988. The petitioner's case as per allegations made in the writ petition is that, petitioner after having completed the graduation joined ll.b. course in the university law college, dharwad in the year 1985. According to her case, she passed her ll.b., i year examination held in April 1986 and secured 380 marks out of 600 and was declared to have passed in i class. The petitioner further alleged that she has passed her ll.b. ii year examination also in first class after having secured a total of 377 marks out of 600. According to petitioner's case, in the year 1988 ll.b. iii year examination had been held and petitioner appeared in that examination and as per result originally declared, she had secured ii class but had been awarded the i rank as there has been no other candidate who could have secured more marks than the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that, petitioner applied for revaluation of her papers in Code of Civil Procedure, court fees and labour law. As a result of revaluation, there has been a change in the marks in the labour law paper. As per revaluation in labour law paper, the petitioner was awarded 73 marks which in course of valuation she had been awarded as only 50. When the petitioner applied for revaluation, petitioner had surrendered her original marks card and after the revaluation another marks card has been issued declaring the petitioner to have passed ll.b. iii year examination in i class with the total aggregate of 61% of marks vide Annexure-D to the writ petition. The petitioner's case is that the respondent issued the rank certificate declaring the petitioner to have passed the ll.b. iii year examination in i rank. The petitioner's case is that, as per notification dated 20-9-1985 issued by controller of examinations, revaluation of papers have been permitted and that notification has been issued on the basis of the resolutions passed by academic counsel as well as by syndicate and the order of vice-chancellor dated 19-9-1989. The petitioner further alleges that, in pursuance of ordinance 99, petitioner had been entitled to the grant and award of "v.r. bhat gold medal' for having stood first in rank in ll.b. course and for having obtained highest percentage of marks. Petitioner's case is that, when she moved the authorities of the university and requested for the award of the gold medal to which the petitioner was entitled, she did not receive any reply and by endorsement dated 13-4-1989, they refused to award the same on the ground that the petitioner marks were less than 60% as per original marks card issued. Though no doubt her percentage of marks had crossed the minimum percentage of 60% as a result of revaluation, it is on this ground the opposite parties refused to award the petitioner the gold medal. Having felt aggrieved from this order dated 13-4-1989 issued by the registrar of Karnataka university, the petitioner has filed this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of india.

(2.) i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri v.p. kulkarni and Sri r.h. chandanagoudar appearing on behalf of the karnatak university, dharwad. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri v.p. kulkarni submitted that, as per ordinance 99 issued under the universities Act, the petitioner had been entitled to the award of concerned gold medal as petitioner had obtained highest percentage of marks in the ll.b. examination. The learned counsel submitted that, in view of ordinance 99(d) the condition of minimum 60% of marks did not apply. The petitioner having obtained highest marks in the course, which no other student could cross, petitioner was entitled to the award of gold medal and clause (c) of ordinance 99 did not apply in this case. In alternative, the petitioner's counsel Sri v.p. kulkarni submitted that, as per revaluation of her marks, the petitioner's percentage of marks crossed the limit of 60% and her total aggregate was found to be 61% and that being the position, as petitioner has passed the law examination i year, ii year and iii year with highest marks in first attempt and in law iii year she obtained highest percentage of marks and crossed the limit of 60% by obtaining 61% of marks, the petitioner having ranked first, ought to have been awarded the gold medal. The learned counsel submitted, revaluation really indicated nothing but some flaw in valuation and marks in first instance and as a result of revaluation the correct percentage of marks in labour law paper increased. There is no question of petitioner having passed iii year ll.b. examination in other than first attempt. Learned counsel submitted that the ordinance existing in 1988 would apply to the petitioner's case and it did not anyway provide that if the marks of a candidate in revaluation do increased and crossed the limit of 60% and the candidate happens to be the one having secured the highest marks, he would not be entitled to the award of gold medal. There being no such condition that marks obtained in the first valuation have to come as such, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the university authorities acted illegally in not awarding the gold medal for the petitioner to which she has been entitled under the criteria prescribed vide ordinance 99.

(3.) on behalf of the opposite parties Sri r.h. chandanagoudar submitted that ordinance 99(d) had been deleted. As such, the criteria of minimum percentage of 60% of marks and passing of the examination in first attempt which is an essential condition for grant of award and there can be no case of any exemption from the conditions mentioned in ordinance 99(c). Sri r.h. chandanagoudar, learned counsel for the university further submitted that the marks as communicated in the original marks card could have counted for the grant of the award and that petitioner's marks as per original marks card and earlier to revaluation, had been 57% i.e. less than the requisite percentage. So, she was not entitled to the award of the gold medal, as a result of revaluation and the increase of marks as a result of revaluation did not entitle the petitioner to the award of gold medal in question. The learned counsel for the university submitted that, as such the petitioner's writ petition is misconceived and she has got no right either to award or to the writ being allowed or any direction be issued in her favour by this court.