GYAN CHANDRA MEHROTRA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Gyan Chandra Mehrotra against the dismissal of a petition filed by him under Article 228 of the Constitution. In the month of May 1962 the appellant appeared as a candidate at the LL.B. Previous Examination of the Allahabad University in which ha was required to answer seven papers including one paper on Law of Easements and Torts. In each of the papers he obtained marks which were in excess of the minimum of 36 per cent required in order to qualify him for being declared a successful candidate. The Ordinance further laid down that in order to succeed he had to obtain a minimum of 50 per cent marks in the aggregate. The total marks being 700, a minimum of 350 marks in the aggregate was needed by him to be declared successful. In fact only 349 marks were assigned to him so that he was not included amongst the list of successful candidates. The contention of the appellant in the petition was that he in fact secured more than 350 marks in the examination and consequently he prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, the University of Allahabad and the Registrar of the University to rectify the mistake and declare the appellant as a candidate who had passed the LL.B. Previous Examination.

(2.) The case was contested on behalf of the respondents and counter-affidavits were filed. In the counter-affidavit the marks obtained by the appellant in the various papers were disclosed. It appears that in the charts prepared showing the marks obtained by this appellant there was no mention of any marks received by him for general impression in the paper on law of Easements and Torts. It seems that since the appellant had failed by only one mark in the aggregate it was held by the Vice-chancellor that the answer books of the appellant had to be scrutinised by him in consultation with the Heed of the Department under Ordinance 13 of Chapter 29 which runs as follows:

(3.) On a scrutiny being made, the Vice-Chancellor came to the finding that there had been an omission to allot marks for general impression in this paper and further held that he had to arrange for the rectification of the omission. On the recommendation of the Dean and the Registrar, the Vice-Chancellor, in these circumstances, agreed that marks for general impression may be allotted by the Dean to the appellant and the other candidates similarly circumstanced. The position was that in the paper on the law of Easements and Torts the maximum marks prescribed were 100 and there was a note that the six questions which had to be answered each carried equal marks, while 4 marks were reserved for general impression. The Registrar's proposal, founded on the basis of a report of the Dean of the faculty of Law, was that each candidate should be awarded marks for general impression in proportion to the marks received in the various questions. On scrutiny of the appellant's paper books it was found that he had been allotted marks for answers to each question, but there was no note at all to indicate whether any marks had been awarded to him for general impression. The Vice-Chancellor having directed the Dean to award the marks, the Dean awarded 2 marks to the appellant. This was in proportion to the marks received by the appellant in the various questions. Subsequently, a letter was issued by the Registrar to the examiner inviting his attention to the 4 marks reserved for award on general impression, and requesting him to allot marks for general impression also in the answer books of the Supplementary Examination. The examiner, thereupon sent a reply stating that he had all along been conscious of the 4 marks reserved for general impression for which he had his principle and practice which he had been following awarding marks on general impression not only in this University but also in other Universities, for the last 20 years, whereupon the Dean of the Faculty of Law reiterated his view that marks should be allotted in cases of the type of the appellant in proportion to the marks received in the specific questions. The papers were then placed "before the Vice-Chancellor who perused the letter of the examiner and then had a talk with the examiner on the telephone, The impression gathered by the Vice-chancellor as a result of this telephonic talk appears to have been that It had been the practice of the examiner concerned not to make any specific award at all in respect of marks allotted for general impression in cases in which the examiner was of the opinion that the candidate did not deserve any mark at all for general impression. After this talk the Vice-Chancellor reversed his previous order allowing the Dean to allot marks for general impression on the ground that that order had been made under the mistaken impression that there had been an omission on the part of the examiner with regard to the award of marks on general impression. The result of this final decision by the Vice-Chancellor was that the appellant was not declared successful as he was short by one mark in the aggregate. It was in these circumstances that he came to this Court by the writ petition giving rise to this appeal.