RAM KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the Summer Schools-cum-Correspondence Course Scheme, 1968 of the University of Rajasthan Ramkumar Sharma appellant appeared for his Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.) Examination. He was declared unsuccessful and feeling aggrieved he presented a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of INdia to this Court praying that the interpretation of the relevant regulation No. 43, B-6 given by the University was erroneous and he deserved to be declared successful. The University of Rajasthan joined issue by filing an answer in support of the interpretation it had taken of the regulations which were applicable to the appellant. The learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated January 23, 1970 examined the scheme of the examination and observed that it was capable of two interpretations but in view of the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Principal, Patna College, Patna vs. Kalyan Sriniwas Raman (l) preferring the view taken by the University, he dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by that decision Ramkumar Sharma has come up in appeal.

(2.) MR. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that the correct interpretation of Note (4) of Regulation No. 43 B-6 is that the minimum number of marks which a candidate was required to obtain in order to pass the examination in every subject in the external was 35% and in the internal assessment it was to be 40% and 45% in the aggregate. The University is in error when it insists that a candidate must secure 35% marks in each paper, on account of which interpretation the appellant was declared unsuccessful. He brought to our notice Ordinances Nos. 329. L 2, 329. L-50 and 329 L-23 for the purpose of showing that the University has been consistently keeping a marked distinction between the word "subject" and the word "paper". In note 4, urged the learned counsel, each subject meant the totality of papers, if there were more than one, under the subject, and in the instant case, he said that in the subject "philosophical and Sociological Foundation of Education", although the papers were two in number, the subject is one. He endeavoured to explain the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal, Patna College (l ).

(3.) THE subject matter of the controversy between the parties centres round note (4) appended to the aforesaid regulation 43, B-6, in respect of minimum pass marks relating to external examination. Bereft of superfluities, note (4), so far as is material for the present case, provides that "the minimum number of marks required to pass the examination shall be 35 per cent in the external and 40 per cent in the internal assessment in each subject (emphasis is ours ). While in clause (2) of the regulation prescribing the scheme of examination the word "paper" has been used, but in note (4), while prescribing the minimum number of pass marks in respect of external examination and internal assessment the word "subject" has been employed. It appears that a a marked distinction has been maintained by the University bodies between a "subject" and a "paper". A consideration of other related Ordinances and Regulations also go to above that whenever the intention was that the minimum pass marks should be obtained by a candidate in each paper separately It has been specifically mentioned as such by the University authorities. For instance, in regulations 43. B-l and 43 B-1a which relate to the regular scheme for B. Ed. examination, it has been provided that the minimum pass marks required were " (1) 35 per cent and 40 per cent marks at the External and Internal Assessment respectively, in each paper under Part I and (ii) 50 per cent marks in each of the subject (a) Practice teaching (b) Content and (c) Physical Education-Health, Recreation and Hygiene under Part II". Thus in these regulations also when the University prescribed the minimum pass marks in respect of papers under Part I the words "each paper" have been used, but when the minimum pass marks were prescribed in respect of subject under Part-II the words "each of the subject" were employed. In ordinance 329 L-2 'philosophical and Social Foundations of Education' has been described as a "subject" for One year Teacher Education Course, for the degree of Bachelor of Education, while in the corresponding Regulation 43 B-l it has been provided that the examination in that subject shall be conducted by means of two papers described as 'paper I' and 'paper II'. Similar is the case in the One year Teacher Education Course in Languages for the degree of Bachelor of Education (Languages) inasmuch as Ordinance 329 L-50 describes "philosophical and Social Foundations of Education" as a "subject", while the related Regulation 43, B 1-4 provides that the examination in the aforesaid subject shall be conducted by means of two papers. In Ordinance 329 L-23 relating to the degree of Bachelor of Education (Craft), although "social and Philosophical Foundations" have been described as a "subject" the corresponding Regulation 43 B-3 clearly provides that the number of papers in the said subject shall be two. Thus in the schemes of related examinations leading to the Degree of Bachelor of Education itself, the University authorities have consistently employed the word "subject" and "paper" to connote different concepts and further "philosophical and Social Foundations of Education" has been consistently treated as one subject in respect of which there are two papers in all the examinations referred to above. THEre does not appear to be any reason to think that the University intended to depart from the aforesaid pattern when it laid down the scheme of examinations relating to the Summer School-cum-Correspondence Course", for the very same degree of Bachelor of Education. In our opinion the University has employed the word "subject" to denote one composite whole while word "paper" has been used to describe the unit of examination. This distinction permeates throughout the scheme of examinations relating the Faculty of Education.