SHALIENDAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions raise common questions as they are based on identical facts, so they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner appeared at the M. Com. (Pre.) examination held in the months of June and July, 1980 add their result was declared on August 29, 1980. They have failed on account of not haying obtained the minimum marks in Paper -I in the subject Advance Business Economics. The petitioner Shailendra Bhandari obtained 21 marks and the other petitioner Gyanmal Mehta obtained 22 marks. Shailendra Bhandari applied on 4 -9 -1980 and Gyanmal Mehta applied on 17 -9 -1980 for re -evaluation of their answer books of the said paper. The University took more than 7 months to declare the result of re -evaluation and their revised marks -sheet was, issued on 15 -4 -1981. On re -evaluation, the marks of the Shailendra Bhandari were increased from 21 to 32 and of Gyanmal Mehta from 22 to 41. Shri Shailendra (Bhandari obtained 71.2% in all whereas, Shri Gyanmal Mehta obtained 42% marks. The petitioners then sought admission in M. Com (Final) class, but they were refused admission. The petitioners by these writ petitions have sought relief that the University may be directed to grant admission to the petitioners and allow them to take examination of M. Com (Final) and then declare their result. In both the cases, by an interim order, the University was directed to give provisional admission to the petitioners in M. Com (Final) class. In Gyanmal Mehta's case, a further interim order was passed directing the University to allow him to appear at the M. Com (Final) examination. The petitioner Shailandra Bhandari too, has taken M. Com. (Final) examination, in view of the grant of the provisional admission to him in pursuance of the order of this Court.

(3.) I have heard Mr. M. Mridul, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H.M. Parekh, learned Counsel for the University.