SEEMA SHROTI Vs. RANI DURGAWATI VISHVA VIDHYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

(2.) THE material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows : The petitioner who is a student of the Home Science College, Jabalpur, appeared for the m. H. Sc. (Previous) Food and Nutrition Examination, conducted by the respondent university in the year 1988. As the petitioner failed to secure 33 marks out of 100 marks as prescribed, in Paper IV-Research Methods and Statistics, she was declared to have failed in M. H. Sc. (Previous) Examination, 1988. The petitioner applied for revaluation of her answer book in Paper IV. According to the petitioner, one of the revaluers gave her 55 marks, while the other awarded her 34 marks. ' The petitioner contends that the respondent University, by erroneously construing the relevant provisions of the Ordinance relating to revaluation of marks, held that the petitioner was entitled to 31 marks only, as a result of revaluation. The petitioner was thereafter declared to have passed by adding two grace marks, but subsequently, the respondent university modified its decision oh the ground that though the petitioner was entitled to get one grace mark only in accordance with the provisions of the relevant rule, inadvertently, by mistake, 2 marks were added to 31 marks secured by the petitioner on revaluation, and that after adding one grace mark only, the petitioner had secured 32 marks and as such, had failed in the M. H. Sc. (Previous) Examination, 1988. Aggrieved by this action of the University in declaring that the petitioner had failed in the aforesaid examination, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that in accordance with the provisions of clause 8 of Ordinance No. 71, the respondent University should have arrived at the average of marks to be awarded to the petitioner on the basis of marks awarded to the petitioner by the original examiner and the two revaluers. It was contended that the petitioner had secured on a correct interpretation of the relevant clause of the Ordinance, more than 33 marks in Paper IV and the respondent university, therefore, erred in law in declaring that the petitioner had failed in the said examination by securing less than 33 marks in Paper IV. It was also contended that whereas in other Disciplines, it was not necessary to obtain minimum 33 marks in each paper, the respondent University had arbitrarily fixed that percentage in the Home science Discipline. It was also contended that no opportunity was. given to the petitioner to show cause and the action of the respondent University was, therefore, vitiated.