VINAY MERTIA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was a student of LL.B. Part II Year in the University of Jodhpur, during the academic year 1989 - 90 appear in ll -year LL.B. examination. He obtained 271 marks in all and got only 10 marks in Paper -V pertaining to the subject 'Jurisprudence and Comparative Law' and was declared eligible for supplementary examination in Paper V. The petitioner appeared in the supplementary examination and secured 40 marks and, therefore, he was declared 'failed'. According to the petitioner, the supplementary examination of LL.B. Part II alongwith other examinations is governed by Ordinance 174 of the Ordinance, according to which a candidate to be declared passed, has to obtain only 36% marks and required to secure 48% marks in aggregate. The case of the petitioner further is that the Course Committee, in its meeting held on March 13, 1989, vide item No. 11, resolved that if a candidate has obtained 36% marks in the supplementary examination and after adding these marks if the total aggregate becomes 48% then the candidate may be declared successful. The Courses Committee further resolved that necessary amendment may be made in the Ordinance. The Committee, also, resolved that this change may be included in the ll -year Examination of Law of Three -years Degree Course for the academic session 1989 -90, also. This resolution of the Course Committee was approved by the Academic Council in its meeting held on April 20, 1989, and by the Syndicate in its meeting held on August 18,1989, and, therefore, in view of the recommendation of these three Academic bodies, the amendment in the Ordinance 174 was made and the exception clause, relating to the L.L.B. student, was deleted. The case of the petitioner further is that in the Syllabus of the University, relating to Three -year Degree Course in Law, for the year 1991 an amendment has been made and the students appearing in the supplementary examination of 1991 in the Faculty of Law are required to obtain 36% marks in the subject concerned in the supplementary examination and 48% marks in aggregate in all the six papers. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the same benefit may be given to the petitioner, also.

(2.) THE case of the University of Jodhpur, on the other hand, is that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ordinance 361 of the Ordinance and the petitioner is required to obtain 48% marks in the supplementary examination and not 36% marks and as the petitioner has not obtained 48% marks in the supplementary examination, therefore, he was declared 'failed'. Regarding the condition of obtaining 36% marks in the Syllabus of 1991, it is stated that the Dean, Faculty of Law was informed by the University that no amendment in the Ordinance has been made and the candidates of the Three Year Degree Course in Law examinations are required to obtain 48% marks in the supplementary examination and the ordinance 361 governs the supplementary examinations of Law Faculty and, therefore, the Dean of the Faculty of Law was asked to clarify the position as to how the provision in the syllabus has been printed without effecting the change in the Ordinance. The case of the University is that even in the examinations of 1991, no such amendment in the ordinance has been made.

(3.) THE question', which requires consideration in the present case, is : by which ordinance the case of the supplementary examination of Law -students in the year 1 989 -90 is to be governed and whether the law candidates are required only 36% marks to be declared successful in the supplementary examination or they are required to obtain 48% marks in the supplementary examination, also.