RITA MAZUMDAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application was made by the petitioner Smt. Rita Mazumdar on the 12th of november 1962 under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was alleged that the petitioner appeared at the M. Sc. Final Examination held by the Rajasthan university in the year 1961 and that Professor Haldar who was internal examiner failed to give marks on each question and instead he put 66 marks in all for the practical chemistry examination out of a total of 200 marks. It was also alleged by the petitioner that she did do very well in her sessional work and may have obtained as many as 40 to 45 marks out of a total of 50 marks reserved for sessional work. The petitioner did not allege that 40 or 45 marks for the sessional work were not included in the total of 66 marks and at the time the petition was heard, the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mathur, expressed his inability to enlighten the Court whether the total of 66 was inclusive or otherwise of the marks for the sessional work. The Court dismissed the application on the ground that there was no merit in it. It was the only relief prayed for that the total marks that were given should have been arrived at by giving marks for individual questions. It was considered not of any use to issue a direction for break up of the total marks for each question, for that would not make any difference in the result of the petitioner. The petitioner has now come again to this Court and has moved a second petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the same allegations with the addition that in the total of 66 marks obtained by "the petitioner on the answer book in chemistry practical, the marks of the sessional work were not added. An affidavit has also been filed in which it has been stated that the Vice chancellor enlightened the petitioner and told her that marks for the sessional work were not added to make up the total of 66 marks. The question arises whether a second petition with some additions relating to facts which were within the knowledge of the petitioner should be permitted and regarded as maintainable. Mr. Vyas has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Daryao v. State of u. P. , AIR 1961 SC 1457. The Supreme Court considered the question of the applicability of the principle of res judicata for applications under Article 32 of the constitution in cases where petitions on the same facts under Article 226 had been heard and decided by the High Courts. The Supreme Court, after having considered the problem before it in full, made the following observations in this behalf: