DEKA J.: This matter comes in revision under R. 36 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills in the Province of Assam, - directed against the judgment and decree passed in an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, Khasi and Jaintia Hills, affirming- the decree passed in Suit No. 86 of 1950 by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner at Shillong. (2) Sailesh Ranjan Deb, opposite party in this rule, brought a suit in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, K & J Hills for a declaration that he had passed the B. T. Examination, of the Gauhati University held in the year 1949 and prayed for an injunction to that effect to be served on the Gauhati University authorities to publish his name in the list of successful candidates of the aforesaid year and claimed damages for Rs. 500/- for wrongful exclusion of his name from the list of successful candidates. The learn- ed Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner decreed i the plaintiff's suit and allowed damage to the extent of Rs. 500/- against the Gauhati University i and issued injunction as prayed for. The University preferred an appeal against the said decree in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree passed by the trial Court. The facts of the case are elaborately discussed in the judgments of both the Courts and we need therefore give only a short resume. (3) The plaintiff's case was that he appeared at the B. T. Examination of the Gauhati University in 1949 from the Shillong Centre (Roll Shillong No. 10) as a student of the St. Edmund College and had secured the necessary pass marks, in the aggregate as well as in each subject including a compulsory subject described as "Contents and Method of Teaching". At the material time the Rules and Regulations of the Calcutta University were adopted by the Gauhati University by a resolution, to be followed up to 1950 with necessary adaptation, and so far as the Rules for the B. T. Examination were concerned, the Rules remained intact till the time when the plaintiff appeared in the fail examination.
At the material time the Rules and Regulations of the Calcutta University were adopted by the Gauhati University by a resolution, to be followed up to 1950 with necessary adaptation, and so far as the Rules for the B. T. Examination were concerned, the Rules remained intact till the time when the plaintiff appeared in the fail examination. It is admitted by both parties that "Contents and Method of Teaching" was one of the compulsory subjects for the said examination there being five such compulsory subjects and this subject formed item No. (4) in R. 1 of the B. T. Examination Rules of the Calcutta University which may be advantageously quoted "(4) Contents and Method of Teaching - any three school subjects from the following list, Geography being considered as equivalent to two subjects: ___three half papers (i) English (vii) Geography. (xiii) Primary and Infant's School Subjects." The plaintiff took up Geography as one of the School subjects under this head which was equivalent to two and the other subject taken was - "Primary and Infant's School subjects", and secured the following marks: Geography 1st paper ___ 22 out of 50 2nd paper .... 19 Primary and Infant's School subject ___20 " The net result was that he secured 41 in Geography out of 100 marks and 61 out of 150 marks assigned to the compulsory subject - "Contents and Method of Teaching". The contention of the Gauhati University was that the candidate ought to have secured 40 per cent, marks in each of the papers in Geography and relied on R. 8 of the Gauhati University Rules for B. T. Examination. But at the material time the pertinent rule, it being R. No. 14 of the B. T. Examination of the Calcutta University, stood) as follows: "In order to pass, a candidate must obtain 40 per cent, of the marks in each of the compulsory subjects and 40 per cent, of the marks in the practical examination." (4) The Courts below were correct in interpreting the rules and in holding that what was contemplated by R. 14 was that the candidate in order to pass, should obtain 40 per cent, marks in each of the compulsory subjects and it does not speak of 'subjects', if I might use that word, constituting any of the compulsory subjects.
Geography when taken as one of the school subjects under item (4) what is provided under R. 1 is that it will be considered as equivalent to two subjects - and the candidate will be required to take only one more subject out of the list of thirteen items given therein and necessarily there would be two half papers on Geography. There is nothing to indicate or even to imply that the two half papers on this subject would be considered to be two separate or independent subjects. Gauhati University fully realised this sense and in their Rules relating to B. T. Examination which were published later, made it clear in R. 8 by adding the line "He must obtain 40 per cent, of the marks in each paper in Geography". It is abundantly clear that R. 7 of the Calcutta University B. T. Examination Rules admits of no other explanation than the one given by the Courts below - and they were correct in holding that the plaintiff passed the B. T. Examination of the Gauhati University held in the year 1949 and that he was entitled to a declaration to that effect. The learned Advocate for the University has raised no question as to the amount of the damage allowed and we see no reason to interfere with the finding. (5) Two other points have been agitated by Mr. Medhi on behalf of the petitioner and they are (1) that the Shillong Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to try this suit first on the ground that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction and secondly that the University Act not being extended to the area where the Court was situated or the examination was held, the Court could not pass a decree which was asked for on the basis of the said Act; (2) that no order could be passed by the Court challenging the decision of the University as to the B. T. Examination result in which the opposite party appeared, inasmuch as it purely concerned the domestic jurisdiction of the University and the Court could not interfere with its working. (6) In support of the second contention Mr. Medhi relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court by Piggot J. reported in - Ram Ugrah Singh v. The Benaras Hindu University, AIR 1925 All 253 (2) (A).
(6) In support of the second contention Mr. Medhi relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court by Piggot J. reported in - Ram Ugrah Singh v. The Benaras Hindu University, AIR 1925 All 253 (2) (A). This was a decision passed some time in 1925 and since then there have been decisions of other High Courts where it was held that the Court had jurisdiction to interfere with: a wrong decision of the University affecting the! interest of the students including the examination results, provided the decision is found to be in contravention of the rules and regulations governing the University. What happened in the case reported in AIR 1925 All 253 (2) (A) was that the candidate who presented himself at an examination held under the authority of the Benaras Hindu University failed to secure the pass marks according to the regulation as modified by the Syndicate without 'due authority. The matter, however, was placed before the Visitor who approved of the list of successful candidates as tabulated according to this regulation adopted without proper legal sanction. What the Court held on this point is quite significant from the lines quoted below: "The resolution of the Senate of 18-8-1924:, and the sanction of His Excellency the Visitor, although they cannot, in my opinion, obliterate the fact that the Syndicate committed a breach of the existing regulation when they tabulated and published the result of this examination, are not, however, wholly without effect even as regards this past transaction." (7) In this view of things, the learned Judge more or less tried to console the candidate by saying that it was done with the best intention for the benefit of the students and he refused to interfere with the University result as published. This decision does not say that the jurisdiction of the University was sanctimonious and it could not be touched by the Courts even though the authorities were wrong in interpreting the rules and regulations which govern the relation between the University and the examinees. In these circumstances, this decision cannot have any bearing and in our opinion the Court could interfere in such matters as we ourselves have done in Civil Rule 3 of 1953 (Himendra Chandra Das v. Gauhati University', AIR 1954 Assam 65 (B). (8) Let me come to the other contention of Mr.
In these circumstances, this decision cannot have any bearing and in our opinion the Court could interfere in such matters as we ourselves have done in Civil Rule 3 of 1953 (Himendra Chandra Das v. Gauhati University', AIR 1954 Assam 65 (B). (8) Let me come to the other contention of Mr. Medhi, namely as to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit, the cause of action of which is said to have taken place by the defendant outside the jurisdiction of the Shillong Court Mr. Medhi in support of his contention relied on S. 20 Civil P. C. It is an admitted fact that the examination was held within the municipal limits of Shillong and the College also from which the candidate appeared is situated in Shillong. We cannot therefore say that no part of the cause of action took place within the limits of the Shillong Court which extended its jurisdiction over the Municipal area. Section 20 Civil P. C., the spirit whereof is applicable, says that the suit can be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. This argument of want of territorial jurisdiction therefore cannot hold the ground and it must be rejected. The other branch of the argument regarding jurisdiction has some force and this contention lis that neither the Calcutta University nor the I Gauhati. University Act had been extended to Shillong administered area by the appropriate! notification by the Governor of Assam and as such, those Acts are not applicable to the said area and the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the cause of action for which was founded upon an alleged infringement of the said Acts and the regulations made there under. Mr. Medhi in sup-' port of this contention relied on a decision of this Court reported in - 'Chanda Singh v. Executive Engineer Assam Rly.', AIR 1953 Assam 93 (C), where it was held that in the absence of a notification by the Government under S. 92, Govt. of India Act, 1935, no Act of Dominion Legislature or of the Provincial Legislature shall apply to an excluded area or a partially excluded area.
of India Act, 1935, no Act of Dominion Legislature or of the Provincial Legislature shall apply to an excluded area or a partially excluded area. In this case, no notification has been issued extending the operation of the two University Act to the K & J Hills, but we are not sure whether the place where the examination was held or the Court is situated was within the excluded area or the partially excluded area. This point was not: pleaded nor agitated in any of the courts below. This was a mixed question of fact and law which should have been definitely pleaded and proved taut that not being done, we cannot, at this revisional stage go into that matter and undo a decision which on the facts seems to be just and pro-' per. On reference to the Sixth Schedule of the present Constitution, we find under R. 20(ii) that the areas for the time being comprised within the Cantonment and the Municipality of Shillong with some limitations, are excluded from the tribal, area of United Khasi and Jaintia Hills described: as Part A of the Sixth Schedule. Under these circumstances we are not prepared to give much, weight to the contention of the petitioner on this-point as well. We accordingly hold that there is no ground for our interference and the Rule must, be discharged with costs. (9) SARJOO PROSAD C. J.: I agree. Rule discharged.