Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1966 DIGILAW 17 (MP)

Satya Swaroop v. University of Jabalpur

1966-02-02

P.V.Dixit, R.J.Bhave

body1966
ORDER Dixit, C.J. 1. The petitioner, Satya Swaroop Rattan, look the M. Sc. (Final) Examination in Geology held by the Jabalpur University in April 1965. He passed the examination in First Division, standing first in order of merit. On petitioner's request, the statement of marks obtained by him at the said examination was supplied by the University on 3rd June 1965. That statement of marks showed that he had obtained 390 marks out of a total of 500. According to the applicant, the marks secured by him were the highest in the Science Faculty examinations held by the University in 1965. 2. On 5th July 1965, the University issued a notification setting out the marks obtained by the examinees enumerated therein in the M. Sc. (Final) Geology Examination of 1965, and saying that the statements of marks issued to those examiners earlier were cancelled and asking them to return those statements for being revised in accordance with the statement of marks given in the notification. The revised statement showed that the applicant had secured 382 marks out of 500. The petitioner says that the University authorities had no power to make any modification in the marks obtained by any candidate after the declaration of his result and that the revision of marks notified on 5th July 1965 was mala fide and was for the purpose of depriving him of the first place he had obtained amongst the successful candidates who took the Science Faculty examinations held by the University in the year 1965. He prays that the revision of marks effected in regard to him to be quashed and that a direction be issued to the respondents to give effect to the statement of marks sent to him on 3rd June 1965. 3. In the return filed by the respondent, it has been admitted that the statement of marks, which was issued to the petitioner on 3rd June 1965, mentioned that he had secured 390 marks out of 500, that a revised statement of marks was notified on 5th July 1965, and that therein it was stated that the applicant had obtained 382 marks out of 500. It has however, been denied that the revision of the marks of the petitioner and of other examinees was mala fide or without any authority. It has however, been denied that the revision of the marks of the petitioner and of other examinees was mala fide or without any authority. According to the University authorities, the revision of marks obtained by the petitioner and other candidates taking the M. Sc. (Final) Examination in Geology became necessary as the examiners in Sessional Group II and Practical Group I had made mistakes in the allotment of marks and those mistakes remained unnoticed while tabulating the marks obtained by the various candidates. It has been said that according to the prospectus of M. Sc. (Final) Examination in Geology, the maximum number of marks for Sessional Group II was 10, but the examiner made the allotment of marks to various examinees taking 20 as the maximum number of marks; and that the tabulator also made a mistake in taking the allotment of marks for Practical Group I examination as out of the maximum of 70 when in fact the examiners had made the allotment taking the maximum number of marks for that Practical as 80. According to the return, the revision of marks thus only corrected there errors; that the revision only resulted in having the number of marks obtained by the petitioner in Sessional Group II examination; and that it did not in way have the effect of raising the maximum number of marks. 4. Having heard, learned counsel for the parties we have reached to conclusion that this application must be dismissed. Under section 26 of the Jabalpur University Act, 1956, the Executive Council is the body competent to publish the results of the University examinations. As this body has the power to authorize publication of the results of the examinations, it has also necessarily the power to make corrections in the results. Section 12 (4) of the Act gives to the Vice-Chancellor the power to take immediate action in any emergency and to report the action taken by him at the next meeting to the authority which in the ordinary course would have death with the matter. It is thus plain that the revision of marks effected, and subsequently notified on 5th July 1965 with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, was under valid authority. The Vice-Chancellor also reported the action taken by him to. It is thus plain that the revision of marks effected, and subsequently notified on 5th July 1965 with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, was under valid authority. The Vice-Chancellor also reported the action taken by him to. the Executive Council at a meeting held on 23rd December 1965 during the pendency of this petition, and his action in modifying the results of the examination was approved and confirmed by the Executive Council.; The Vice-Chancellor should have no dobbt reported his action much earlier to the Executive Council. But if he did not do so, that does not affect the validity of the revision of marks, notified on 5th July 1965. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that the Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Council had the power to take steps for the correction of errors in the allotment and tabulation or marks and in the publication of results. He, however suggested that the revision of marks effected in the present case was mala fide done with the sole purpose of depriving the petitioner of the first place he had obtained amongst the successful candidates taking the Science Faculty examinations. There is no foundation for this allegation. The material placed before us unmistakably shows that both the internal and external examiners for Sessional, Group II erred in making the allotment of marks taking the maximum as 20 when in fact the maximum should have been 10 only, and that the examiners for Practical Group I also omitted to note in the statement of marks prepared by them at the close of the; examination as well as on the answer-books of the examinees the maximum number of marks, namely, 80 for the guidance of the tabulator. When the statement of marks for Practical Group I did not specify the maximum number of marks and the answer-books also gave no indication of the maximum number of marks, the tabulator took 70 as the maximum number of marks for Practical Group I in order to make up the total number of marks for M. Sc. (Final) examination to 500. (Final) examination to 500. The statement of marks prepared by the examiners and the answer-books of the petitioner in Practical Group I were produced before us and the examiners also filed affidavits saying that they totally forgot to enter in the answer-books as well as in the statement of marks the fact that the allotment of marks they had made in the Practical was out of 80. The examiners in the Sessional Group II also stated in their affidavits that the allotment in Sessional Group II was out of 20 marks when in fact it should have been out 10 as the maximum number of marks. We see no ground for rejecting the statements of the examiners that they had made a mistake in taking 20 as the maximum number of marks for Sessional Group II and in omitting to mention in the statement of marks prepared by them the maximum number of 80 out of which they had allotted the marks to the examinees. If these errors and omissions committed by the examiners and the tabulator are given effect to, as they must be, then the reduction of 8 marks obtained by the petitioner was legitimately effected by the University authorities. 6. It must, however, be said that the examiners and the tabulator no doubt discharged their duties in a slovenly and careless manner. The mistakes and omissions they committed do no credit to them or to the University authorities. But the correction of those errors by the University authorities by itself does not furnish any ground even for suggesting that the examiners or the tabulator or the University authorities acted mala fide. It is noteworthy that the revision of marks effected, by the University on 5th July 1965 affected not only the petitioner but several other successful candidates also. There was reduction in the total number of marks obtained by other examinees also. That being so, the allegation of the applicant that the revision of marks was effected solely for the purpose of lowering his position assumes that the University authorities had such a strong animus against the petitioner that they decided to reduce the number of marks obtained by the applicant, and in order to achieve this purpose they also decided to reduce without any reason the marks obtained by other examinees. There is no warrant whatsoever for such an assumption. 7. There is no warrant whatsoever for such an assumption. 7. For these reasons, this petition is dismissed. We hope that the University authorities will see that in future mistakes and omissions of the type noticed in the present case are not committed at any time by any examiner or tabulator and that the results of examinations are vetted and published by the competent University authority strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Jabalpur University Act, 1956, and the relevant Statutes and Ordinances. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.