RAJKISHORE SENAPATI Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in each of these five writ applications appeared at the Annual B.A. Examination of the Utkal University of the year 1979 from the Nimapara College. The Utkal University has framed a set of hard case rules in terms of which if a candidate fails in any two subjects for a total of 15 marks or less in written papers, he could be made to pass in both the subjects in case the deficiency in each subject was five per cent or less. As indicated by a Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Gita Mishra v. Utkal University ILR (1971) Cut 242 : (AIR 1971 Orissa 276) these Rules have been in vogue for many years and have been treated to be valid. The five petitioners had failed in English and Modern Indian Language. During, the year in question instead of the Board of Examiners scrutinizing the cases of such candidates as the petitioners, the Tabulators were authorised to give effect to the hard case rules. On the basis of the addition of marks given by the Tabulators each of the petitioners was declared to have passed the Annual B.A. Examination. The Principal of the Nimapara College as agent of the University issued the certificates and mark-sheets. On the basis of such certificates each of the petitioners took further steps for securing seats for higher study and/or registering himself for employment. Within about a little more than two weeks from the date of publication of the results by a fresh notification each of the petitioners was declared to have failed. These writ applications have been filed challenging the subsequent notification that petitioners have failed to pass the Annual B.A. Examination.

(2.) Given below is a statement showing case-wise the marks actually added in respect of each of the petitioners and the total permissible addition :- Marks actually added Total permissible limit Case Number English M.I.L Total English M.I.L. Total OJC 1077/79 6 8 14 8 4 12 OJC 1078/79 8 6 14 8 4 12 OJC 1079/79 1 8 9 8 4 12 OJC 1080/79 7 8 15 8 4 12 OJC 1081/79 9 6 15 8 4 12 Dr. Das on behalf of the petitioners in a common argument contends that under the Statutes it is the Board of Examiners who was to look into these cases and apply the hard case rules. In the year 1979, the work was not assigned to the Board of Examiners as required by the Statutes and, the Tabulators were asked to do the job. Even if a mistake had occurred to the extent that more than five per cent marks have been added, since the results had been duly published and the petitioners had already taken further steps on the basis of the published results, the University authorities were estopped from recalling the publication and declaring the petitioners to have failed.

(3.) Two separate affidavits have been filed- one by the Utkal University (Opposite Party No.1) and the other by the Principal of the College from where petitioners took the examination. In the counter-affidavit, it has been conceded that though the Statute required that the Board of Examiners should have scrutinized the results for the purpose of application of the hard case rules, contrary to the statutory mandate in the year in question, the work has been handled by the Tabulators. The Controller of Examinations who has given the counter-affidavit in paragraph 18 thereof has pleaded :