JAGPREET SINGH Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are seized of an intra-court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against an order rendered by the learned Single Judge vide which the Civil Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as available on the record may be noticed. Appellant was a student of four years B. Tech. course in Urban and Regional Planning in Guru Ramdass School of Planning under the respondent University in the academic session July, 2014. The grading system was adopted. The theory subject was consisting of 100 marks (50 marks for minor test and 50 marks for major tests) and the practical subject was also consisting of 100 marks. The appellant cleared his first semester in December, 2015 by securing 5.82 SGPA and second semester in June, 2016 by securing 6.44 SGPA. Appellant also cleared his third semester by securing 4.46 SGPA but got E grading for the subject 'Planning Theory-II', meaning thereby that he failed in the third semester but was promoted to fourth semester as per the existing rules. The appellant thereafter joined the fourth semester. He was declared failed in the practical subject as he secured only 18 marks out of 100, whereas no other student was declared failed in this subject. According to the appellant, in his answer sheet of 'Transportation Planning-I' examination one last answer carrying 05 marks was left unevaluated. The stand of the respondents was that the appellant wrote question No.5 part (i) on page 17 of the answer-sheet, but left it unanswered after writing the title of the question only. He was, thus, awarded zero mark in that answer. On the next page also nothing was written by him. Appellant had written the answer to each question just under their title in his answer-sheet, but against question No.5 part (i) the page was left blank. No plausible explanation, whatsoever, has been forwarded by the appellant with regard to the factum of writing the answer to the said question on page 18 and 19 when page 17 was left blank. Still further the appellant did not follow instruction No.11 printed on the answer-sheet. Further on pages 3 to 17 there are lot of cuttings but on pages 18 and 19 hardly there is any cutting. The reason might be because the answer has been added by resorting to unfair means. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.13960 of 2017 in this Court for quashing the detailed mark sheet and directing the respondents to evaluate the unevaluated question of the appellant in Transportation Planning-I subject and to declare his result based on the marks obtained by him. Vide judgment dated 02.08.2017, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant.

(3.) Ex facie, the learned Single Judge, on a deep and thorough analysis of the matter found that there was no doubt that immediately after returning from leave the respondent No.5 made a complaint that there were indications to state that his room had been broken into. Thus, the court was not in a position to give a determinative finding as to whether appellant or the respondents were correct. That being the case, the learned Single Judge was of the view that these were pure question of facts which did not warrant an interference by the writ court.