Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 402 (JK)

Hina Farooqi v. University Of Kashmir

2003-12-17

S.K.GUPTA

body2003
Petitioner passed her M. A. Final examination in English Literature from the University of Kashmir, Srinagar, in the year 1991 as a regular candidate. She appeared under Roll No. 2088 of 99 and secured 51 % marks in aggregate. The petitioner also availed statutory chance in December and appeared in two papers and improved upon her earlier result in the said papers obtaining 54.25% marks in aggregate. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition and claims the following reliefs; (a) Direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding respondents to re-evaluate the petitioners answer script in the paper of "American Fiction" in M. A. English Examination held during the annual session of 2000; (b) In the alternative, to allow the petitioner to re-appear in the paper of "American Fiction" or any other paper in M. A. English to improve her division/percentage of marks in her M. A. Examination. (c) To issue a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding respondents to register the petitioner in M. Phil in the department of English during the current Session or the next following session. 3. It is admitted case of the petitioner that after passing her M. A. Final Examination in English Literature, she appeared in two subjects for improving her division/percentage in the year 2000. It is also admitted that she improved upon the earlier result and obtained 54.25% in aggregate. 4. Mr. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, did not dispute that as per the University Statute, there is no provision for evaluation of the papers and his request for the same made earlier had been turned down. The scheme for re-evaluation of the answer scripts came to be introduced in the year 2002 and made effective from the academic Session of 2002. Learned counsel admitted that as per the Statute the petitioner can be given only one chance within two years from the passing of the degree examination for improvement of percentage, which the petitioner has already availed. The Statute of the University had fixed 55% marks for registration in M. Phil course whereas the petitioner has obtained, after improvement, 54.25% marks in aggregate. 5. The Statute of the University had fixed 55% marks for registration in M. Phil course whereas the petitioner has obtained, after improvement, 54.25% marks in aggregate. 5. The stand of the respondents, in their objections, is that since the petitioner has availed the chance by appearing in two papers in the year 2000 for making improvement upon her result, no further chance can be allowed under the Statute. Further stand of the respondents is that there was no scheme for re-evaluation of the papers in the year 2000 when the petitioner applied and her request rejected. Further submission of the respondents is that the petitioner could not be allowed registration in M. Phil as she could not obtain 55% marks in qualifying examination prescribed by the Statute. 6. Mr. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently urged that since there is no express bar in the University Statute for re-evaluation and allowing another chance to the petitioner to appear in the examination in order to improve upon her result, it was neither proper nor appropriate for the University to reject her application. 7. This contention, though attractive, cannot be accepted for obvious reason that when Statute provide one chance to re-appear within two years to improve upon the result, second chance is barred by implication by the Statute itself. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioner has not challenged any of the Statutes of the University prescribing one chance to a candidate to re-appear after passing the examination in order to improve his percentage, or the rules and Statutes fixing 55% marks for registration in M. Phil course. It is well settled proposition of law that the petitioner is bound by the rules and Statutes of the University unless challenged in the court of law. The petitioner has already availed of the benefits which were available to her under the rules and Statutes. No injustice has been caused to the petitioner by refusal for re-evaluation and for availing another chance to re-appear, what was not provided in the rules or Statute. 8. It is apt to point out that to fix the percentage for registration to M. Phil. is the domain of the University. This percentage is fixed in looking to various factors including academic atmosphere in the University and to maintain excellence in the standard of education. 9. 8. It is apt to point out that to fix the percentage for registration to M. Phil. is the domain of the University. This percentage is fixed in looking to various factors including academic atmosphere in the University and to maintain excellence in the standard of education. 9. The petitioner has failed to carve out a prima facie justifiable cause to maintain the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.