RAJENDRAKUMAR CHANDRAKANT NADKARNI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questions the vires of the second part of Ordinance 237-A of the Ordinances and Regulations of the University of Bombay and Ex. F issued on the basis thereof.

(2.) THE petitioner and the second respondent were students doing the Master of Commerce course from a College affiliated to the Bombay University. For obtaining a M. Com. degree, the candidate has to undergo two examinations conducted annually. Marks of both the examinations are aggregated for the purposes of ranking amongst the candidates. In the M. Com. Part I examination the petitioner had applied for a revaluation of his answer books in the subject of Cost Accounting. Initially, he was awarded 54 marks out of 100 marks, and upon a revaluation was given revised marks of 71. In the Part II examination, petitioner secured 240 marks out of 400 marks. The total for the two examinations worked out to 502 marks out of 800 marks. On 17-8-1983, under the signature of the Registrar of University, a special certificate was sent to the petitioner proclaiming that he had stood first amongst a total number of 260 candidates who had passed from amongst 645 candidates who had appeared for the examination. In the next year on 30th March, 1984 the University issued the communication at Ex. F bringing to the petitioners notice the alleged error in proclaiming him the first amongst the successful candidates. This was on the basis of the impugned Ordinance. To appreciate the impugned provision in its proper perspective it will be necessary to reproduce the same in full:-

(3.) MR. More in support of the contention taken by his client relies upon (Anjay Bansal v. Bangalore University and another) A. I. R. 1990 Kant. 225. The provision impugned in that decision was worded thus: