SATYA SWAROOP RATTAN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JABALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner, Satya Swaroop Rattan, took the M. Sc. (Final) Examination in Geology held by the Jabalpur University in April 1965. He passed the examination in First Division, standing first in order of merit. On petitioner's request, the statement of marks obtained by him at the said examination was supplied by the University on 3rd June 1965. That statement of marks showed that he had obtained 390 marks out of a total of 500. According to the applicant, the marks secured by him were the highest in the Science Faculty examinations held by the University in 1965.

(2.) ON 5th July 1965, the University issued a notification setting out the marks obtained by the examinees enumerated therein in the M. Sc. (Final) Geology Examination of 1965, and saying that the statements of marks issued to those examinees earlier were cancelled and asking them to return those statements for being revised in accordance with the statement of marks given in the notification. The revised statement showed that the applicant had secured 382 marks out of 500. The petitioner says that the University authorities had no power to make any modification in the marks obtained by any candidate after the declaration of his result and that the revision of marks notified on 5th July 1965 was mala fide and was for the purpose of depriving him of the first place he had obtained amongst the successful candidates who took the Science Faculty examinations held by the University in the year 1965. He prays that the revision of marks effected in regard to him be quashed and that a direction be issued to the respondents to give effect to the statement of marks sent to him on 3rd June 1965.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that the Vice- Chancellor and the Executive Council had the power to take steps for the correction of errors in the allotment and tabulation of marks and in the publication of results. He, however, suggested that the revision of marks effected in the present case was mala fide done with the sole purpose of depriving the petitioner of the first place he had obtained amongst the successful candidates taking the Science Faculty examinations. There is no foundation for this allegation. The material placed before us unmistakably shows that both the internal and external examiners for Sessional Group II erred in making the allotment of marks taking the maximum as 20 when in fact the maximum should have been 10 only, and that the examiners for Practical Group I also omitted to note in the statement of marks prepared by them at the close of the examination as well as on the answer-books of the examinees the maximum number of marks, namely, 80, for the guidance of the tabulator. When the statement of marks for Practical Group I did not specify the maximum number of marks and the answer-books also gave no indication of the maximum number of marks, the tabulator took 70 as the maximum number of marks for Practical Group in order to make up the total number of marks for M. Sc. (Final) examination to 500. The statement of marks prepared by the examiners and the answer-books of the petitioner in Practical Group I were produced before us and the examiners also filed affidavits saying that they totally forgot to enter in the answer-books as well as in the statement of marks the fact that the allotment of marks they had made in the Practical was out of 80. The examiners in the Sessional Group II also stated in their affidavits that the allotment in Sessional Group II was out of 20 marks when in fact it should have been out of 10 as the maximum number of marks. We see no ground for rejecting the statements of the examiners that they had made a mistake in taking 20 as the maximum number of marks for Sessional Group II and in ommitting to mention in the statement of marks \ repared by them the maximum number of 80 out of which they had allotted the marks to the examinees. If these errors and omissions committed by the examiners and the tabulator are given effect to, as they must be, then the reduction of 8 marks obtained by the petitioner was legitimately effected by the University authorties.