WILLIAM RODRIGUES Vs. GOA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a student of M. A. in Philosophy of Goa University and he appeared for M. A. (Part II) Philosophy Examination conducted by Goa University in the month of June, 1991. The results of this examination were declared somewhere in August 1991. The petitioner was declared successful in all subjects except in one which is the subject Head of Passing of Contemporary Western Philosophy in which he secured 31 out of 100 marks falling short of 9 marks to be declared successful. Hence the petitioner failed in this subject on account of this shortage of 9 marks only. The subject (Head of Passing) of Contemporary Western Philosophy is a core subject which means a compulsory subject and is divided into two components being one Internal and the other External. The Internal Component consists of two tests each carrying 20 marks in a total of 40 marks. The External Components consists of one test carrying 60 marks. The petitioner secured 27 out of 40 marks in the Internal Component, i. e. , in both the tests and 4 out of 60 marks in the External Component. The petitioner therefore applied for revaluation of the External Component immediately after the results were declared as on 9-8-1991. On 16-8-1991 the petitioner received reply from the Controller of Examinations of Goa University stating that his request for revaluation could not be accepted as per Ordinance 5. 18. On 22-8-1991 the petitioner made a representation to the Chairman of the Grievances Committee of the University complaining that his answer scripts in Contemporary Western Philosophy had been undermarked and requested that the necessary books be reassessed by the Head of Department of Philosophy. On 3-9-1991 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of Goa University bringing to his notice that his request for revaluation had been arbitrarily rejected by the Controller of Examinations. On 4-9-1991 the petitioner received reply from the Controller of Examinations stating that the petitioner was not eligible for revaluation under Ordinance 5. 17 as he did not fulfil the conditions required because he had failed to secure the minimum of 50% of marks required for passing in the Theory Paper of the University. The petitioner by another letter dated 3-10-1991 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor once again requested him to look into the matter. By letter dated 4-10-1991 the Vice-Chancellor replied that the petitioners request for revaluation was found to be not admissible in terms of the relevant provisions of the Ordinance 5. 17 of the University. It is this rejection of the petitioners prayer for revaluation by communications dated 16-8-1991 and 4-9-1991 from the Controller of Examinations and the one dated 4-10-1991 from the Registrar of the Goa University which are sought to be challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition filed by him under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In the prayer clause the petitioner has asked for a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and set aside the aforesaid communications dated 16-8-1991, 4-9-1991 and 4-10-1991 from the Controller of Examinations and Registrar of Goa University, respectively, as well as for a writ of mandamus or a direction to the respondents to have the petitioners answer re-evaluated and also by way of amendment of his prayer for a declaration that a portion of Ordinance 5. 17 (a) enacted by the Goa University to the extent that it provides that candidates would be eligible to ask for revaluation only if they have secured in the concerned subjects or Heads of Passing at least 50% marks required for passing in that subject or Head of Passing is null and void.

(2.) SHRI Lotlikars, learned Counsel for the petitioner, first submission is that both the Internal and External Components are Theory Papers and since the petitioner has obtained 31/100 marks being 27/40 and 4/60 marks in both the Components, that is to say, more than 50% of passing marks in the concerned subjects or Head of Passing which, as per Ordinance 21. 41, is 40% of the total the petitioner should be entitled to ask for re-evaluations. Therefore, the rejection of his prayer for revaluation is wrong, illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) AGAINST this submission Shri Khandeparkar has contended that the petitioner is not eligible to ask for revaluation since he had obtained only 4 marks in the External Component and as such in view of Ordinance 5. 17 read with Ordinance 21. 23 no prayer for revaluation would be admissible or available to the petitioner.