MAKKA RAJA SEKHAR Vs. ANDHRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three writ petitioners, Makke Rajasekhar (Roll No. 95129), Narasimha (Roll No. 95138) and Chandu Lakshmi Srinivas (Roll No. 95120), appeared for the final year examinations of Five-Year Law Course, through Sir C.R. Reddy Law College, Eluru, along with other students in April 1999 conducted by the Andhra University-respondent herein. Along with other subjects, the petitioners appeared for the examination in one of the compulsory subjects, viz., "Principles of Legislation, Legislative Drafting and Interpretation of Statutes" (for short 'the subject'). All of them are declared to have passed the said examination in the results announced by the University. Initially, in the results declared, first petitioner was declared to have passed and secured 53% in the 'subject' and failed in Taxation subject by securing only 16% marks. The University seems to have sent a communication to Sir C.R.R. Law College, Eluru, bearing No. B.IV (5)/Misc./2000 dated 13-3-2000, to collect the marks memoranda already issued to some candidates, including the first petitioner, in respect of examinations held in April 1999 and send them to the University for verification. The College collected the marks memoranda and transmitted to the University. Meanwhile, first petitioner applied for re-valuation of Taxation paper. After revaluation, the University issued a revised marks memorandum to the 1st petitioner stating that he failed in the 'subject' as he got only 22% marks as against 53% originally obtained by him and that he passed Taxation subject by getting 47% marks as against 16% marks got by him earlier. Similarly, petitioners 2 and 3 are declared to have passed in the 'subject' initially, but subsequently both of them are also declared to have failed in the 'subject' saying that they secured only 19% and 22% of marks respectively in the 'subject'.

(2.) The affidavit sworn to by the first petitioner in this writ petition is silent about the exact marks secured by petitioners 2 and 3 in the first instance, in the 'subject'. It is alleged by the petitioners that the University authorities orally informed them that some bungling took place in the office of Registrar of University relating to decoding the answer scripts and some students who took the examination in the 'subject' from Sir C.R.R. Law College, Eluru, have been wrongly declared as 'passed' the examination in the 'subject' in the first instance, even though they failed in the 'subject'. The University authorities, the petitioners state, have informed the petitioners that a re-examination in the 'subject' will be conducted immediately, waiving the fee, and results thereof will be announced without delay if the petitioners and other similarly placed students submit a joint representation to the University in that behalf. According to the petitioners, they have pointed out to the University authorities that exactly one half of the students (similarly placed as that of the petitioners) who took the examination in the 'subject' from Sir C.R.R.Law College cannot be declared to have failed in the 'subject' in serial order when the other half of the students with the same serial order are declared to have passed in the 'subject'. They pointed out that three students who appeared for the examination in the 'subject' with Roll Nos. 95102, 95104 and 95121 are declared to have passed in the 'subject' and have already enrolled themselves as advocates. Though the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is prolix with redundant averments, in essence, the action of the Andhra University in retrieving the marks memoranda from the petitioners, in which the University stated that they have passed in the 'subject', originally issued to the petitioners, and subsequently declaring them as failed in the said 'subject', without giving any notice, is being assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) The University filed its counter, stating inter alia, that after the valuation oi the 'subject', while sending the corrected marks forms which contain the marks of the candidates to the Confidential Cell from the Spot Centre, two corrected marks sheets of the 'subject' ("Principles of Legislation, Legislative Drafting and Interpretation of Statutes") were wrongly tagged to the bunch of corrected marks forms of Criminal Procedure Code, probably because of the similarity of the Code Numbers of both the subjects except for one digit. The first three digits begin with 325 and 326 for the two subjects, while in both the subjects the last three digits are the same, i.e., 721 to 750. This mistake committed was undetected, it is stated in the counter-affidavit, and the marks relating to code Nos. 326721 to 326750 (30 candidates) of Criminal Procedure Code subject have been posted inadvertently for Code Nos. 32571 to 325750 (30 candidates) of the 'subject' ("Principles of Legislation, Legislative Drafting and Interpretation of Statutes") vice versa and the results have been announced accordingly. It is stated that this discrepancy has been noticed when some of the students applied for revaluation of their answer scripts in Criminal Procedure Code subject, and noticing the wide variation between the original marks and the revaluation marks of these students, the issue has been probed thoroughly and the authorities have verified all the answer scripts and during that verification it was found that the mistake has occurred because the corrected marks forms of one subject have been wrongly tagged on to the corrected marks forms of another subject at the spot valuation centre and sent to the Confidential Cell. It is stated that after discovering this mistake, the University sent a letter to the College to collect the marks sheets of the petitioners and other and transmit the same to the University as to correct the marks memoranda and to issue fresh marks memoranda. The marks noted in the marks memoranda initially issued to the petitioners and others against the 'subject' (Principles of Legislation Legislative Drafting and Interpretation of Statutes") actually relate to the subject "Criminal Procedure Code" secured by some other candidates, but not by the petitioners and the rest of the 30 candidates, Adverting to the allegation of the petitioners that some of the candidates, similarly placed as that of the petitioners are declared to have passed in the 'subject', it is stated in the counter that four candidates with Roll Nos. 95102, 95104, 95106 and 95121 have obtained their provisional certificates. However, it is stated that candidates with Roll Numbers 95102 and 95121 have originally passed their examination in the 'subject', With regard to candidates having Roll Nos. 95104 and 95106, it is stated that they did not complete their examination in the 'subject' and their marks memoranda and provisional certificates are being withdrawn and their results will be declared afresh based on the marks originally obtained by them. The University contended that the marks memoranda and provisional certificates are purely 'provisional' and the University has got every right/power to withdraw/recall the same from the candidates to whom they are issued, whenever it finds any discrepancy or mistakes therein.