SUJATA SURYAVANSHI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by six students against the University of Mumbai and others seeking certain reliefs. Prayer (a) is to the effect that the provisions of Ordinance No. 237-A be declared as unconstitutional, ultra vires and in violation of fundamental rights and void ab initio. Ordinance No. 237-A is incorrectly mentioned everywhere in the petition as Ordinance No. 273-A. We have gone through the Ordinance. The Ordinance puts, certain restrictions on the right of revaluation of answer books. It states that a candidate who appears in all the subjects of a University examination at one and the same sitting and in not more than two heads of passing of prescribed for theory papers at the said examination shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his answer book in the said heads of passing provided he has secured at least 50 per cent of the marks required for passing in each of those heads or minimum C Grade in cases where grades are assigned to theory papers. There is further provision in case of a candidate who has passed in individual heads, but has failed only on the aggregate, in which case he shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his answer books in any two theory papers of his choice. Clause 2 makes a provision where a candidate who appears for an examination in any theory paper or papers and fails in only one head of passing prescribed for theory papers at the said examination shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his answer books in the said head of passing provided he has secured at least 50 per cent of the marks required for passing in that head or minimum C grade in cases where grades are assigned to theory papers. For the purpose of this clause, a candidate who has passed in individual heads, but has failed only on the aggregate, shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his answer book in only one theory paper of his choice.

(2.) APART from the fact that the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has not been, in any way, in a position to show us what is wrong with this Ordinance meaning thereby how it is unconstitutional or against any fundamental rights, we are of the clear opinion that all such rules and ordinances by the academic body like the University are with view to maintaining minimum academic standards and it is settled law, in our opinion, that such matters are best left to autonomous body like the University. We have found nothing wrong in the aforesaid Ordinance and we do not find any merit in so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned.

(3.) PRAYER (b) states that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the University and other authorities to implement or act upon in furtherance or in pursuance of the memorandum of demands raised vide memorandum dated 4th October, 1997. We find it impossible to entertain any such prayer. However, it may be interesting to see the memorandum of demands by the students made to the Vice Chancellor. The signatories, who are students of the Government Law College, have demanded the follows:-