Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 104 (BOM)

Vaishali v. Kode VS University of Bombay & others

2001-02-09

A.P.SHAH, S.J.VAZIFDAR

body2001
JUDGMENT - VAZIFDAR S.J., J.:---Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The facts in the present petition are admitted. The petition involves the interpretation of General Regulation No. 1 of the first respondent. 3. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the University of Bombay (respondent No. 1) to Award her the N.C. Kelkar Golden Medal for Marathi during the Convocation Ceremony. 4. The petitioner passed her B.A. Examination in June, 1997. In June, 1997 the petitioner was admitted to M.A. Part I (entire Marathi) course with the first respondent. In May, 1998, the petitioner appeared for the M.A. Part I Examination. The petitioner was declared as having passed M.A. Part I Examination in First Class in August, 1998. In the meantime, however, in June, 1998, the petitioner was admitted to the B.Ed. Course with the first respondent. The petitioner passed the B.Ed. Course in June, 1999. Thereafter the petitioner was admitted to M.A. Part II Course in May, 2000. In August, 2000 the petitioner was declared as having passed M.A. Part II Course with a first class having secured 540 marks in aggregate out of 800 marks which was the highest in the first respondent University. Thus the petitioner was admitted to M.A. Part I in June, 1997 and presented herself for the M.A. Part II examination in May, 2000 i.e. within three years. 5. The petitioner has stated that initially between September and November, 2000 she was informed by the concerned authorities that she was eligible to be awarded the Gold Medal for having obtained the highest marks in M.A. Part II. However, subsequently the petitioner was informed that the first respondent had decided to Award the Gold Medal to the second respondent. Admittedly the second respondent had secured 17 marks less than the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submitted that the first respondent had decided to Award the Gold Medal to the second respondent based on General Regulation 1 which reads as under:--- "No candidate shall be eligible for any non-sectional Fellowship, Prize, medal or other Award, who presents himself for the examination to which the Award relates more than two years after expiry of the minimum period prescribed by the Regulations governing that examination. The computation of the period for the purpose of this regulation shall begin from the date of passing of the preceding lower examination which qualifies the candidate to enter on the course for the higher examination provided, however, that where there are alternative qualifications laid down in the ordinances governing admission to a particular examination, the computation of the period shall begin from the date on which the candidate concerned qualified himself to enter upon the course for the examination and that in case of the following examinations, the computation of the period of two years for determining the eligibility of the candidate for the Award under the regulation shall begin from the date of commencement of the academic year in which the candidate is admitted to the course of studies concerned and not from the date of passing the preceding examination which qualifies the candidate to enter upon the course. 1. D.M.S. 4. B.Lib.Sc. 7. M.Ed. 10. M. Chem (Engg.) 2. M.M.S. 5. M.Lib.Sc. 8. M.E. 11. B.Sc. (Nursing) 3. M.L.S. 6. B.Ed. 9. M.Sc. 12. LL.M. (Tech.) Provided further that the period, if any, spent by a candidate in combatent services shall be excluded for the period laid down in the regulation for the eligibility of a candidate for an Award. Nothing in this regulation shall apply to the examination by research. (Emphasis supplied)." 6. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the petitioner having taken a break between M.A. Part I and M.A. Part II is ineligible to be awarded the Gold Medal in view of the above Regulation. 7. Admittedly the portion underlined above falls for our consideration. The subsequent portion does not. The preceding lower examination which qualified the petitioner to enter the course for the higher examination of M.A. was the B.A. course. The B.Ed. Course, which the petitioner completed between M.A. Parts I and II, is not an alternative qualification entitling a candidate to be admitted to the M.A. course. Thus the second part of the above regulation (not underlined by us) does not apply to the petitioner. 8. It is necessary, therefore, to analyse the first part of the above regulation. The bar against a candidate receiving a fellowship, prize, medal or other Award in the first part of the regulation does not operate against the petitioner. Thus the second part of the above regulation (not underlined by us) does not apply to the petitioner. 8. It is necessary, therefore, to analyse the first part of the above regulation. The bar against a candidate receiving a fellowship, prize, medal or other Award in the first part of the regulation does not operate against the petitioner. For the bar to operate a candidate would have had to appear for the examination, to which the Award relates, more than two years after the expiry of the minimum period prescribed by the Regulations governing that examination. The minimum period prescribed by the Regulations governing the M.A. examination is two years. Under the above Regulation, the petitioner would have been disentitled to be awarded the Gold Medal only if she presented herself for the M.A. Part II Examination "more than two years after expiry of the minimum period prescribed by the Regulations governing that examination." Thus the petitioner would have been ineligible to be awarded the Gold Medal only if she presented herself for the M.A. Part II course more than four years from the date on which she secured admission to the M.A. Part I Examination. In the present case the petitioner presented herself for the M.A. Part II Examination in May, 2000 i.e. less than three years after the petitioner was admitted to M.A. Part I in June, 1997. 9. The fallacy in the submission on behalf of the respondents is that they have considered a period of only two years from the date on which the petitioner secured admission to the M.A. Part I course. This submission loses sight of the fact that in addition to the minimum period prescribed for passing the M.A. Course, a candidate is permitted a further two years within which he/she can complete the course in order to be entitled to a fellowship, prize, medal or other Award. It appears that in the past the first respondent had also interpreted the Rule in this manner. 10. Mr. Rodrigues, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of first respondent, tendered the minutes of a meeting of the Committee appointed by the acting Vice Chancellor to frame concrete guidelines for deciding the eligibility of the candidates for Award of the Medals/Prizes/Scholarships etc. The minutes of the meeting discloses the incorrect interpretation of the above general regulation No. 1 by respondent No. 1. The minutes of the meeting discloses the incorrect interpretation of the above general regulation No. 1 by respondent No. 1. What is pertinent to note is that at the meeting the committee made the following recommendation in order to eliminate confusion arising out of lack of clarify in the present Regulations. "1. A candidate to be eligible for an Award/Prize/Medal/Scholarship should have passed the relevant examination within the prescribed period for the course without any break of gap i.e. the period of study should be continuous. 2. For the purpose of Award at the higher examination, any break or gap between the completion of the lower examination and admission to the higher examination is to be ignored for the purpose of determining eligibility for the Award/Prize/Medal Scholarship." We see no confusion or lack of clarity in the first part of the said Regulation. What is now recommended by the Committee is different from the clear words of Regulation No. 1. It is Regulation No. 1 that governs the rights of the parties to the above writ petition. 11. In the circumstances, the Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Respondents to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Private Secretary of this Court. -----