SACHCHIDANANDA TRIPATHY Vs. VICE-CHANCELLOR SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner a student of the University - College of Engineering, Burla -had appeared for the Final Engineering Degree Examination of the Sambalpur University held in April, 1969. His roll No. is 473. He secured marks in different subjects as would appear from Annexure III extracted below :- SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY. University College of Engineering, Burla. Mark sheet. Name of candidate, Shri Sachida Nanda Tripathy Roll No. 473, B. Sc. (Engineering) Part II (Electrical Engineering Branch) - 5 Year, April 1969. Maximum mark Marks secured Sl. No. Subject. Uni. Coll. Total Pass Uni. Coll. Total Exam. Exam. marks Exam. Exam. 1. Electrical Machine 80 20 100 30 37 2 39 Design, Part II ... Generation and 80 20 100 30 35 7 42 Protection ... Utilisation with 80 20 100 30 46 8 54 traction ... Lower plant 80 20 100 30 38 6 44 Practice ... Industrial 80 20 100 30 40 15 55 organisation and workshop management ... High Voltage 80 20 100 30 40 8 48 Engineering ... Industrial 80 20 100 30 19 2 21 electronics Mathematics, Paper 80 20 100 30 62 3 65 VIII 640 160 800 240 368 (B) Sessional Work (a) Electrical Laboratory 100 100 60 68 } (b) Electronics Laboratory 100 60 59 } (c) Electrical Engineering, Design Project I 100 60 70 } 42 (d) Electrical Engineering, Design Project 200 120 133 } II (e) Approved extra-mural training or 125 90 } practical training (f) 25% of Grand total in B. Sc. (Eng.) Part 375 198 I Examination Grand 1800 986 Total Sd/ B. S. Chakrabarti 25-8-69 for Principal University College of Engineering, Burla" x x x x x x It could appear from the above marksheet that he failed in the subject "Industrial Electronics" securing 21 marks out of 100 though the pass mark was 30. Similarly, he failed in Sessional Work in the subject Electronics Laboratory securing 59 marks out of 100, though the pass mark was 60.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that both the aforesaid two subjects will be treated as one subject and that under Regulation 9 (3) (ii) in Chapter XX-A of the Utkal University Regulations adopted by the Sambalpur University he was to be allowed to appear in the University Examination held on 29-8-1969 as he secured not less than 50% of marks in the particular Sessional work and not less than 65% marks in that group of Sessional work. In fact, the petitioner secured more than 50% in the Sessional work relating to Electronics Laboratory and more than 65% in the aggregate in the group of sessional work (B). After the petitioner failed in the first University Examination he approached the Principal of the College (opposite Party No. 4) who advised him to appear as a non-collegiate student in the second examination to be held in the month of August 1969; the principal expressed this view in support or the petitioner's case in his letter to the Vice-Chancellor dated 19-8-1969 (Annexure II). THE petitioner accordingly submitted the applications and deposited the necessary fee. THE Vice-Chancellor, however, by a letter dated 16-8-1969 had intimated that the petitioner could not sit for the second University Examination to be held on 29-8-1969. THE petitioner further asserts that in 1968 two candidates Satyanarayan Sahu and Dologobind Sethi were allowed to sit for the second examination though they had failed in two subjects and that the decision of the University not to allow the petitioner to sit for the second examination is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.