AJIT KUMAR BARAL Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had appeared in B.Sc. Annual Examination of 1989 in Three Year Degree Course from Buxi Jagabandhu Bidyadhar College, Bhubaneswar. When the results were declared on 15-81989, the petitioner did not find his name in the list of candidates who had passed the said examination. The petitioner then approached the Controller of Examinations, Utkal University (opposite party No. 3) and learnt that five of his answer papers in Physics Honours and one paper in Chemistry were missing. The petitioner, therefore, lodged a complaint before opposite party No. 3 on 21st of Aug., 1989 through the Principal of the College, wherein the Principal had made an endorsement that the petitioner had appeared in all the papers in the annual examination. Thereafter the University authorities made a thorough search and could locate four of the petitioner's answer papers and sent a revised mark-sheet to the College, which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ application. When the petitioner approached opposite party No. 3 again he was told that two other answer papers in Physics were still missing and on being available the petitioner's results would be declared. The petitioner then submitted an application through the Principal of the College stating therein that though he had appeared for the 4th paper in Chemistry and 7th, paper in physics, yet in the mark-sheet it has been shown as if he was absent, and this fact was endorsed by the Principal of the College. The Principal further wrote that the Assistant Controller of Examinations Shri B.H. Mahapatra had received those answer papers on 6-4-1989. The petitioners application together with the endorsement of the Principal thereon has been annexed as Annexure-3. When the petitioner approached the Controller sometime after, it was revealed that all the answer papers could be traced out, but only 7th, paper in physics was missing. As there was no hope of getting the missing answer paper, and as the petitioner's results were not declareu the petitioner approached this Court for a direction that the University should publish the results by applying the proportionate quotient method commonly called "PQ" method which is being applied by the University in case any answer paper of the examined is lost. While the writ application was pending, the Utkal University declared the results of the petitioner by a notification dated 20th of Oct., 1989, by applying the PQ method and the petitioner was placed in 2nd Class, but when the petitioner wanted the mark-sheet, he was not supplied with the same. The petitioner, therefore, amended the writ application by introducing an averment that the University committed an error while applying the PQ method in finding out the average by taking into consideration all the marks secured by the candidate both in the back papers as well as the marks obtained in the current examination. In other words, the only grievance of the petitioner that remains to be adjudicated upon in this writ application is as to how the PQ method has to be applied. In essence, the question, therefore, is as to how the average has to be found out.

(2.) The stand of the University in its counter-affidavit is that there is no provision either in the Statutes or the Regulations of the University for this PQ method, but when some answer paper is lost and the students results cannot be declared, then with the permission of the Vice-Chancellor, the mark of the candidate in the missing paper is determined by applying the PQ formula and the average is found out by taking into consideration all the marks in all the papers including all back papers and thereafter finding out the percentage of marks put that percentage in the missing paper. In the case of the petitioner the same principle was adopted with the order of the Vice-Chancellor and the petitioner was placed in the 2nd Class. In course of hearing of the writ application, the learned counsel for the petitioner raises the only contention that when PQ formula is applied to find out the marks of a candidate in a missing answer paper, the average must be found out by taking into consideration the highest marks in each of the papers which the candidate has obtained and not by taking into account the marks in the back papers in which the candidate had failed in earlier years, inasmuch as those marks get obliterated by the candidate appearing again and securing a higher mark. Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, contends that under the orders of the Vice Chancellor average has been determined by taking into account all marks in all papers including the back papers and, therefore, there has been no illegality in finding out the average mark of the petitioner in missing paper 7 in Physics by applying the P.Q. method. To our query as to wherefrom this PQ formula is derived, Mr. Mohanty for the University is unable to point out any provision but states that it is so done under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor. We are expressing no opinion on the question of legality of applying P.Q. method in awarding marks to a candidate in respect of his missing answer paper, since we are only concerned in the present case with the problem as to whether when a candidates answer paper is lost and the University decided to supply marks in the said answer paper by determining his standard on the basis of average marks in all other papers, is it permissible for the University to take into account the marks obtained in those examinations wherein the candidate had failed and had been permitted to appear again in later years.

(3.) The provision dealing with permission to a candidate to appear at the subsequent examination is that if a candidate fails in any of the papers in any examination, he is given two additional examinations to clear up the back paper without further attendance at lecture as a collegiate candidate for the college concerned and then the highest mark obtained in that paper would be the mark of the candidate in that paper. The file produced by the University dealing with the petitioners case indicates that the Controller of Examinations passed orders that the average marks of the theory papers in Honours Examination may be taken as the marks for the missing paper-7 and this was approved by the Vice Chancellor. The office then put up a note as to whether the performance of the candidate in all chances of examination would be taken into account for determining the marks in the missing paper on application PQ formula or it should be determined on the basis of the highest marks in those papers. It was clearly pointed out by the office that the result of a candidate is determined taking the highest mark of the paper secured by him. For example, if a candidate secures 2 marks in Paper-I in 1986 and then takes that as a back paper in 1987 and obtains 4 marks and finally appears in 1988 and obtains 25 marks then his mark in paper-I would be 25 and on that basis his result will be declared. But the Controller took the decision that the average of all the theory papers should be taken into account for determining the marks to be supplied in the missing paper by considering the main paper as well as the back paper together and this decision was approved by the Vice Chancellor and that is how the petitioners marks in Paper-7 in Physics Honours which was missing could be given. In the absence of any regulation or statutory provision to back such a decision, the Court is only concerned to find out whether the method applied can be said to be reasonable or arbitrary.