BALJIT KAUR Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The vires of Rule 14 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar (Volume II), 1986 (for short 'the University Calendar') are being challenged in this petition on the ground of vagueness and arbitrarily in so far it provides that the adverse result on re-evaluation of the answer books shall be binding on the student community.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case relevant for the disposal of this petition is that the petitioner appeared in M.A. Economics Part I Examination of the University in April, 1991. Her result was declared in Sept., 1991, declaring the petitioner having passed M.A. Economics Part I Examination. However, she had obtained 38 and 36 marks respectively in Part II (Macro Economics) and Paper IV(ii) (Economics of Industry), although she alleges having well done these papers. Aggrieved by the results of low marks, she applied for re-evaluation of these two papers in M.A. (Macro Economics) and M.A. (Economics of Industry).

(3.) On the basis of the declared results, she took admission in Economics Part II and had already completed the required attendance or lecturers in order to appear in the said later examinations going to be held in April, 1992. The result of re-evaluation was conveyed to the petitioner in Feb. 1992, whereby her marks had been reduced to 37% in Paper II (Macro Economics) and 27% in Paper IV(ii) (Economics of Industry) and she was declared fail in M.A. Economics Part I, whereas in her original result she was declared 'Pass' securing 162 marks in all. The petitioner had applied for re-evaluation on the prescribed format and Para 12 therein which provided that the result of re-evaluation whether favourable or unfavorable shall be binding on a candidate who applies for re-evaluation. Para 12 of the Instructions has been imbibed from rule 14 of the University Calendar, 1962. Under these circumstances, the petitioner maintains that rule 14 being arbitrary is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the marks once awarded to a candidate cannot be reduced on an application filed by such candidate on the basis of doctrine of promissory estoppel as-well-as on the underlying principles of re-evaluation at the instance of the candidate. It was also averred that the re-evaluation of the marks of the answer books in these papers was not conducted on the basis of average of the three awards of the two examiners, who had re-evaluated and the original result.