SANJOY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Sanjay Kumar Gupta appeared in the B. Sc. Final (Electronics) Examination conducted by the Kurukshetra University in April, 1988 and secured 240 marks out of a total of 450. In Mathematics Paper-II, he obtained 33 marks, out of 75 which were awarded to him by the original examiner to whom the answer book had been sent for evaluation. Not satisfied with these marks, the petitioner applied on 23-7-1988 for reevaluation of his Mathematics Paper-II which had to be done in terms of Clause 19.4 of the Rules for Reevaluation of Answer Books (hereinafter called the Rules). The result of a candidate, according to this clause, could be revised on the basis of reevaluation score in terms of clause 19.3 of the Rules only if the character of the result was changed. Character of the result means 'fail to compartment', 'fail to pass' compartment to pass' or 'vice versa change in division' or where on reevaluation, the score increases or decreases by 5% or more of the maximum marks allotted to the concerned paper. Clause 19.3 of the Rules as it stood in April, 1988, when the petitioner took the examination reads as under :-

(2.) Petitioner having applied for the reevaluation on 23-7-1988 of his Mathematics Paper-II, the respondent-University in accordance with the amended rule quoted above found that there was no change in his reevaluated score and he was sent a communication (Annexure P-1 with the writ petition) to this effect by the Assistant Registrar (Re-evaluation). Since the amended rule had come into force by the time the petitioner applied for his reevaluation, the University reevaluated his answer book in the light of the amendment. It is this action of the University which has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The only contention advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner is that since he took his examination in April, 1988, all rules including those relating to reevaluation which were in force at that time could govern him and that the amended rule would apply only to students who would appear in the examinations held after the amendment came into force. The stand of the writ petitioner is controverted by the University which seeks to justify its action on the ground that by the time the petitioner applied for reevaluation. the amended rule had already come into force.