DHIRENDRA GABHARUBHAI KACHAR Vs. SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Corporation three petitioners who had appeared at the 1st LL.B. examination from Rajkot centre in April 1983 have challenged the action of the first respondent-University in not giving grace marks to the students appearing from Rajkot centre while giving such grace marks to the students appearing at the very sane examination from other centres. The aforesaid action of the respondent University has been challenged on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In order to highlight the grievance of the petitioners it is necessary to note a few relevant facts The petitioners alongwith other students appeared at the first LL.3 examination conducted by the respondent-University in April 1983 The petitioners appeared from the Rajkot centre. They had appeared in 7 papers. The petitioners contend that after the papers of the concerned subjects were examined the University by its resolution dated 30-7-1983 decided to give grace marks to the students who had appeared in the first LL.B. examination in April 1983 from the University. Mr. Nanavati for the University has placed on record a copy of the said resolution. It stated that those students who had appeared in 1st LL.B. examination held in April 1983 and had obtained not less than 30 marks in the paper of 100 marks and who had not got benefit of A.T.K.T. (allowed to keep terms) and had failed could be given grace marks totalling to 15 so that they could pass out after obtaining benefit of statutory marks (i.e. condonation marks). But it was further resolved in the very same resolution that this benefit of addition of grace marks will not be available to those students who had appeared at the very same examination from Rajkot centre meaning thereby that this benefit of grace marks was to be available to the students who had appeared in the first LL.B. examination of April 1983 from centres other than Rajkot centre. The petitioners who had appeared from Rajkot centre contend that the aforesaid decision of the University is patently arbitrary and ultra vires Article 14-The first respondent which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 could not have adopted the aforesaid discriminatory treatment and could not have picked and chosen a group of students similarly situated for being conferred the benefit of grace marks and could not have singled out the petitioners who appeared from Rajkot centre and who are otherwise similarly situated for a different and hostile treatment. The petitioners there-fore contend that the respondent-University should be directed to give equal treatment to all concerned including the petitioners for being conferred the benefit of the aforesaid policy decision of addition of 15 grace marks as per the said resolution.

(3.) Notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent-University. In para 1 of the affidavit-in-reply the case of the respondent-University has been highlighted by its Deputy Registrar (Legal). It will be profitable to extract the averments in the said para with a view to appreciating the defence of the respondent-University. I say that the meeting of the committee of settlement of the results consisting of the Chairman and 11 examiners was convened on 30th July 83 The said committee after careful consideration of the results of the variouscentres of 1st LL.B. examination held by the respondent No. 1-University in April 1983 inter alia came to the conclusion that except in the case of Rajkot centre the grace marks upto the limit of 10 may be added in each case in order to make the result reasonable. I say that the said committee found that in the case of Gondal centre the result of successful candidates was 17.2% in the case of Jamnagar the result was 26.9% in the case of Junagadh it was 23.6% in the case of Rajkot it was 76.6%. I say that having regard to the aforesaid percentage it was decided by the committee that in the case of Rajkot the result was fairly liberal and therefore it was not necessary to liberalise the result by adding the grace marks in each case. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the relevant record at the time of hearing. I say that having regard to the aforesaid the petitioners have no right to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Honourable court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A mere look at the above averments shows that the only defence put forward by the respondent-University in support of its action of not granting grace marks to the students appearing from Rajkot centre is that the result from Rajkot centre was fairly liberal. The short question is-as to whether the said defence is justified on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution. In order to answer this question it is necessary to note a few admitted and well established facts on the record of this case: