SANTOSH KUMAR RIMJHA Vs. RANI DURGAVATI UNIVERSITY JABALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present litigation has a very sad story to narrate. The petitioner appeared in M. A. (Previous) Economics main examination as non-collegiate student conducted in the months of March-April, 1999. When the petitioner appeared in the examination he never did imagine that April would be cruelest month for him. The result of the examination was published on 29-7-2000. To the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner he found that he had secured zero in First Paper, "advanced Economics Theory". As the petitioner had performed very well in the said paper and had fullest confidence that he would be securing high marks he applied for revaluation of the answer paper and as envisaged under the Rules governing the field deposited Rs. 200/- for the said purpose. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner had applied for revaluation within the prescribed period of time but as misfortune would have it the University did not show any response and the result of revaluation remained undeclared. With hope and expectation the petitioner approached the University authorities but none cared for his agony and the result of revaluation remained a mirage for him. When visits to the University authorities became an exercise in futility the petitioner knocked at the doors of this Court for grant of justice.

(2.) AFTER the learned counsel for the University appeared in the writ petition the fortune of the petitioner had an open sesame and the result of revaluation was declared and it was revealed that the petitioner had secured three score and seven in the said subject. The story of the petitioner does not end here. Mr. Paresh Parcek, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the delay on the part of the University is unpardonable and if such an act of the University is exonerated the likes of the petitioner would harbour an unexlinguishable anguish in the core of their heart and the disillusionment would remain the same and his agony would be unredeemable. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that due to the inordinate delay on the part of the University the petitioner could not venture to sit in the M. P. SLET Examination, 1999 as well as in the year 2000. The learned counsel has referred to Clause 2. 5 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Stariya Patrata Pariksha Niyam (Annexure P-3) which reads as under :-2-5 e/;izns'k jkt; Lrjh; ik=rk ijh{kk 1999 esa lfeefyr gksus ds fy, ik=rk dh 'krszaand meehnokj] ftugksaus fdlh Hkh eku;rk izkir fo'ofo|ky; lslukrdkskj mikf/k ;k mlds led{k ijh{kk U;wure 55 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkfk mijksdr fo"k;ksa esa ls mkh. kzdh gks] os bl ijh{kk esa lfeefyr gksus ds ik= gksaxsaos meehnokj Hkh bl ijh{kk esa lfeefyr gks ldrs gs tkslukrdkskj mikf/k dh mkjk/kz dh ijh{kk ns jgs gsa] fdurq mugsa rhkh ik= ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;sxk tcfd os viuhlukrdkskj mikf/k ijh{kk 55 izfr'kr ;k mlls vf/kd vadizkir dj mkh. kz gksaxs rfkk bl ijh{kk esa Hkh lqygksaxsa os meehnokj ftugksus ijh{kk blh o"kz esa mkhz. kz dh gs] ijurq mugsa bl o'kz dh Lukrdkskjijh{kk esa 55 izfr'kr vad izkir ugha gq, gsa] os pqustkus gsrq ik= ugha ekus tk,axsa rfkkfi ;fn dksbzvh;fkhz tks Lukrdkskj mikf/k ijh{kk esa vadksa dkizfr'kr lq/kkj dj 55 izfr'kr ls vf/kd vad izkir djrk gsrk smls vuqxkeh Lysv esa lfeefyr gksuk im+sxka It is highlighted by Mr. Pareek that as the petitioner was awarded zero in the subject in question he never could conceive that he would get 55% in Post Graduation, and hence, he felt incapacitated to sit in M. P. SLET Examination. Submission of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for University, is that the petitioner could have appeared in the examination as there is no prohibition in the Rule for the same. Whether the petitioner could have appeared in the aforesaid examination or not and whether Clause 2. 5 can be interpreted in that regard relate to another issue. The fact remains that the petitioner felt incapacitated to appear in the aforesaid examination. The diffidence on the part of the petitioner is the result of the sphinx silence on the part of University which showed no response to the application of the petitioner. As facts have been adumberated hereinabove the result of petitioner was published on 29-7-2000 and the revaluation result of the petitioner was declared on 21-11 -2000. It does not require arty special knowledge in arithmetic to calculate the delay. It is submitted at the Bar that there is provision for revaluation in respect of two subjects and the same is normally done within a period of three months. The Rules do not prescribe for any outer limit for revaluation and intimation of the result thereof to aggrieved examinee. But when no time limit is fixed it is expected that the examination conducting body is expected to act in quite promtitude and conduct the revaluation so that the grievance of the examinees get mitigated. Every examinee is entitled to know the result of the revaluation as expeditiously as possible as the same paves the way for him to take future course of action.

(3.) ON a perusal of the return I do not perceive any perceptible reason for causation of delay for revaluation as far as petitioner is concerned. It is expected from the University to conduct the examination fairly and get the papers valued impartially and objectively and publish the result expeditiously. The issue of revaluation and publication of result thereof are the integral part of the publication of result. The functionaries of the University cannot be allowed to remain in slumber and act in a perfunctory manner to aggravate the tribulation in an aspirant student who deposits the fee and seeks for revaluation. The callousness at the instance of the University is not to be tolerated for the simple reason that it is dealing with young generation who is expected to carry the flag of this century. If their hopes are trammelled at the level of the University in this manner it can be regarded as mental cruelty. It is expected that the University shall forget its past, give a decent burial to the incapacity which has come to light in this case, rise to the occasion and act in quite promptitude and the result of revaluation to the students who seek for the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the application. Such an act of the University would be commendable and usher in a state that alleviates the anguish of the students who carry the torch of posterity.