SEEMA SHROTI Vs. RANI DURGAWATI VISHWA VIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. C. VARMA, J. The petitioner took up M. H. Sc. (Previous)examination in the academic year 1987-88 from Rani Durgawati Vishwa vidyalaya, Jabalpur. As in Paper-IV Research Methods and Statistics, she obtained only 28 marks, which was below the required minimum of 33 marks, she was declared fail, although hi the aggregate the percentage of marks secured by her was 61. She applied for revaluation of the paper of that particular subject. As a result of revaluation, her marks were increased to 31. She was then declared pass, after allowing her benefit of grace marks. This revised result is Ex. P-1. Consequent upon the declaration of this result, she was admitted to the next higher class, i. e. , M. H. Sc. (Final ). It appears that subsequently, the respondent-University found that the petitioner was wrongly declared successful at the M. H. Sc. (Previous) examination and, therefore, by notification dated 3-8-1988 (Annexure P-2), she was declared fail. Consequently, an order was issued declaring her fail and the mark-sheet given to her was amended. It may be mentioned that after she was declared successful in the M. H. Sc. (Previous)examination, she secured admission in M. H. Sc. (Final) classes. On 16-11-1988, she deposited the examination fee to appear at the M. H. Sc. (Previous)examination. At the same time, she challenged cancellation of her result (Annexures P-2 and P-2a) before this Court in Misc. Petition No. 2760 of 1988. The reliefs claimed in that petition were, among others, a declaration that she be declared passed in the M. H. Sc. (Previous) Examination. That writ petition was dismissed by this Court and the decision can be found reported in Kumari Seema vs. Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya, 1988 MPLJ 737 = AIR 1989 MP 53. After obtaining special leave of the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. Notice of that appeal was issued to the respondent-University, which caused appearance before the Supreme Court. It may be mentioned that in that writ petition, clause 8 of Ordinance 71, relating to the marks to be awarded as a result of revaluation, was under examination. This court did not agree with the interpretation put by the petitioner on the provisions of that Ordinance and dismissed that petition. The Supreme Court, however, abstained from returning any finding as to the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by this Court as to clause 8 of Ordinance 71 of the Jabalpur University. The Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of that particular case, passed the following order (Annexure P-3) : -

(2.) HAVING thus secured the Order in terms of Annexure P-3, from the supreme Court, the petitioner, who had already secured admission in M. H. Sc. (Final) classes, continued to attend those classes and on 13-12-1988, deposited the necessary fee for taking up M. H. Sc. (Final) examination. She then made a request for refund of the fee, which she had deposited for appearing at the m. H. Sc. (Previous) examination. In answer to that request, the University passed the order (Annexure P-7 ). The import of this order is that the petitioner was allowed to continue to attend the M. H. Sc. (Final) classes, but was directed to take up both M. H. Sc. (Previous) and M. H. Sc. (Final) examinations to be held in the year 1989. The admission to the M. H. Sc. (Final) examination is, however, said to be provisional. At the end of that order, it is mentioned : "the result of m. H. Sc. (Final) will be declared by the further directive and clarification received from the Supreme Court". It is this order (Annexure P-7), which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, and her contention is that the import of the order of the supreme Court is that she shall be entitled to appear at the M. H. Sc. (Final)examination. She reads that order to mean that for all purposes, irrespective of the contention of the University that she had failed in the M. H. Sc. (Previous)examination, she shall be entitled to continue studies in the M. H. Sc. (Final)classes and to take up that examination. She contends that the order (Annexure p-7) should be set aside, in so far as it directs her to appear at the M. H. Sc. (Final)classes is only provisional and subject to such further directions as the Supreme court may like to issue. As against this, the substance of the return filed by the respondent-University, opposing the petition, is that unless the petitioner passes m. H. Sc. (Previous) examination, she does not become eligible to appear at the final examination. Since the order declaring her fail in M. H. Sc. (Previous)examination has not only been set aside, but has been maintained by this Court, the petitioner has not become eligible to appear at the M. H. Sc. (Final)examination. It is added that in view of the order of the Supreme Court, a facility only has been extended to her to take up M. H. Sc. (Final) examination as well, and nothing more. From these rival contentions, it is clear that the fate of this petition depends upon the true and real import of the order passed by the Supreme Court (Annexure P-3 ).

(3.) FROM what has been narrated above, it is clear that at one stage, as a result of revaluation of paper-IV, the petitioner was declared successful at the m. H. Sc. (Previous) examination, That being so, she became entitled to and wasactually admitted to the M. H. Sc. (Final) classes. It is further clear that had this result been not set aside by Annexures P-2 and P-2a, there is no impediment in her way to proceed to appear at the M. H. Sc. (Final) examination. It was for this reason that the petitioner came to this Court in M. P. No. 2760 of 1988, to get these two orders quashed, so that her previous result, declaring her successful at that examination, would continue. She failed in her attempt in that behalf, as her writ petition was dismissed by this Court. It is against the dismissal of that petition that she persisted her efforts before the Apex Court. Apparently, therefore, in taking the matter to the Supreme Court and in challenging the decision of this court in the aforesaid writ petition, her prayer was to get the orders (Annexures p-2 and P-2a) quashed, and maintain her earlier result, declaring her successful, consequent upon the increase in her marks because of revaluation of paper-IV. Indeed, she could so succeed, if her view canvassed regarding the provisions of clause 8 of Ordinance 71 of the Jabalpur University Ordinances was accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, did not choose to dwell upon the interpretation to be given to that provision. What appears from the terms of the order of the Supreme Court is that Their Lordships were impressed by the fact that consequent upon her being declared successful, the petitioner was actually admitted to the M. H. Sc. (Final) classes and had, therefore, become entitled to take up M. H. Sc. (Final) examination. It is because of this reason, that the supreme Court set aside the subsequent order of the University, cancelling her admission in the final year classes. Cancellation of her admission in the final year classes is a necessary corollary of her being declared fail subsequently by annexures P-2 and P-2a. It is this action of the University, which the Supreme court desires to cancel. The sentence, "we set aside the subsequent order, cancelling her admission", appearing in the order of the Supreme Court (Annexure P-3), therefore, necessarily means that what has been set aside is the cancellation of her result, allowing her admission in the final year classes. The effect of that order, in our opinion, is that the order cancelling her result, declaring her pass and her consequent admission to the final year classes, are set aside. What we say, finds support from the further direction issued by the supreme Court in that very order to the effect, "and direct that her admission in the said course shall continue". We may repeat that she was admitted to the final year classes only upon her being declared successful at the M. H. Sc. (Previous)examination. It is this admission, consequent upon her such success, which is allowed to continue by the order of the Supreme Court. This reinforces our view that what the Supreme Court has set aside was the action of the University subsequently cancelling the petitioner's result, declaring her successful and it was, therefore, that the Supreme Court directed that she will continue to be admitted to the final year course. The extended meaning would, therefore, be that she had become entitled to take up final year examination, which she would not otherwise have been entitled to, if her result, declaring her fail in the M. H. Sc. (Previous) examination was upheld, for, Ordinance 40 of the University only permits a candidate to take up final examination, provided he or she has been declared successful at the previous year examination. It is also pertinent to note that there is a significant omission in the order of the Supreme Court, directing the petitioner to take up previous year examination and this omission also means that she was not required to appear at the previous year examination. This the supreme Court did, because of the facts and circumstances of this case, "particularly of the fact that the appellant was initially admitted in the final year m. H. Sc. course". We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court and in view of our aforesaid interpretation of that order, the petitioner had become entitled to take up M. H. Sc. (Final)examination. The University does not appear to be justified in directing the petitioner to again take up M. H. Sc. (Previous) examination and allow her to take up M. H. Sc. (Final) examination only provisionally. We do not read anything in the order of the Supreme Court to permit the University to say that the result of m. H. Sc. (Final) examination will be declared by the further directive and clarification received from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not retained seisin of the matter, reserving making of any further directive or clarification.