AJANTA NAIK Vs. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner after completing +2 Science took admission in the Government College, Sundargarh in +3 Science Course. After completing 3 year course, she took final degree examination in 1996 of the Sambalpur University with Roll No. 2496 MPH 02. The result of the said examination as published and mark sheet dated 13.2.1997 was issued by the Sambalpur University to the petitioner. The relevant columns of the said mark sheet dated 13.2.1997 are extracted herein below :

(2.) THE aforesaid mark sheet discloses that the petitioner had secured 8 marks out of 75 in Physics paper I and 20 out of 75 in Physics Paper 11, which were fess than the pass mark of 23 out of 75. The aforesaid extracts of the mark sheet would further show that the separate marks were not mentioned as against English, M.I.L. and Ancillary/ Applied courses, but total marks of 60 awarded in the Foundation Course, in which the aforesaid three subjects are included. Since by the aforesaid mark sheet dated 13.2.1997 issued by the Sambalpur University, the petitioner was not shown to have failed in English or in any other subjects except Physics Papers I and II, the petitioner took compartmental examination only in Physics Paper I and II in the year 1997. But in the said compartmental examination also he failed in Physics Papers I and II having secured 12 out of 75 in Physics Paper I and 23 out of 75 in Physics Paper It. In the circumstances, the petitioner again took compartmental examination in the year 1998 in Physics Papers I and II and this time she secured 18 out of 75 in Physics Paper I, 30 out of 75 in Physics Paper II and 30 out of 50 in Physics Practical paper. The petitioner, therefore, expected that the Sambalpur University will declare her as having passed in the said 3 year degree examination. But, in stead, the Sambalpur University intimated the Government College Sundargarh that the petitioner had not passed in English Paper having secured 10 out of 50 marks, whereas the pass mark was 15 out of 50. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for a direction to the opposite parties to declare the petitioner as having passed in the 3 year degree course.

(3.) WE are not convinced by the argument of Mr. Sahoo that the Petitioner had not altered her position on the basis of the aforesaid mistake in the mark sheet dated 13.2.1997 showing 60 marks to have been awarded to the petitioner against Foundation course. The Foundation course comprises of English and M.I.L.(O) and Ancillary course. If the petitioner had failed in English having only secured 10 marks against the column relating to English, the marks secured by her should have been clearly mentioned so that the petitioner would have taken compartmental examination in the year 1997 or in the year 1998 in English along with Physics Papers I and II. But the said 10 marks stated to have been secured by the petitioner in English was not indicated in the mark sheet dated 13.2.1997 issued by the Sambalpur University and in stead, consolidated mark of 60 was indicated in the three Foundation course subjects so as to give an impression to the petitioner that she had passed in Foundation course subjects including English. On account of the aforesaid marks indicated in the mark sheet dated 13.2.1997 issued by the Sambalpur University, the petitioner altered her position in the sense that she did not take compartmental examinations in English in the year 1997 and in the year 1998 and, instead, took compartmental examinations in Physics Papers I and II and practical paper. Several years have passed since the said mistake occurred. At no previous stage the petitioner was informed by the authorities of the Sambalpur University that there was an inadvertent mistake in the mark sheet dated 13.2.1997. When the petitioner took the compartmental examination in the year 1997 and was issued with the marks for only Physics Papers I and II, the University authorities would have detected the mistake and informed the petitioner that she had also failed in English having secured 10 marks out of 50. The University authorities did not intimate the petitioner even after she took the compartmental examination in the year 1997 only in Physics Paperss I and II and Physics Practical. The petitioner was not informed at any stage even before she took the compartmental examination in 1998 in Physics Papers I and II that she was also required to take compartmental examination in English having failed in the said subject. At this stage, when the petitioner had availed both the chances for compartmental examination and had finally passed in Physics Papers I and II and Practical, the University authorities cannot be allowed to say that the petitioner had not passed in English in the very first examination taken by her in the year 1996.