Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 923 (RAJ)

Sawai Singh v. Ajit Singh

2003-07-08

PRAKASH TATIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 1 along with his Advocate. 2. This can be said only that now, this is an 'interesting' matter so far as dispute is concerned, but shocking to note that nobody was serious to get the decision of the Court, even not the Courts in deciding the dispute. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed the suit in the year 1970 for declaration that the plaintiff stood first In the LL.B. Examination conducted in the year 1969 and therefore, he is entitled for the award of Gold Medal for which, the, University took decision to give Gold Medal to defendant No. 2 appellant. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed on 19th Aug. 1975, which Is about within a period of five years. The appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19th Aug., 1975 was dismissed by the first appellate court on 19th April, 1990 taking about fifteen years. The appellant-defendant preferred second appeal before this Court on 23rd July, 1990. This Court ordered to issue show notice to the respondents on 24.2.1992. After service upon the respondents, this appeal is listed for admission today after twelve years. This Is the way of working and the manner In which cases are conducted and remained pending in the Courts. In the trial court where the courts are to proceed with the trial of the suit decided the suit in five years. The first appellant court took fifteen years and second appeal took twelve years for hearing on admission. Less said is better said, but I am compelled to observe that reformers are required more in hearing appeals after finding out reasons for delay at appellate stage, where Courts are required to hear appeals and are not to conduct cumbersome trial of the suit. 3. On merits learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 appeared in the LL.B. Previous Examination in the year 1956, but as it was permissible, he could appear in Final Examination of the LL.B.in the year 1969. The defendant-appellant passed his LL.B. Previous Examination in the year 1954, but as said above, he was also eligible to appear for Final Examination of the LL.B. in the year 1969. The appellant- defendant as well as respondent No. 1 plaintiff both were successful candidates of the LL.B. Final Year Examination, 1969. The defendant-appellant passed his LL.B. Previous Examination in the year 1954, but as said above, he was also eligible to appear for Final Examination of the LL.B. in the year 1969. The appellant- defendant as well as respondent No. 1 plaintiff both were successful candidates of the LL.B. Final Year Examination, 1969. Defendant-appellant secured highest marks in LL.B. Final Year Examination among all the students, but if previous year's marks are also added to prepare merit list for entire LL.B. Course, plaintiff-respondent is having highest marks. However, the University-respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 1) took a decision to award Gold Medal to the appellant-defendant No. 2. The plea is that the appellant secured highest marks in Final Year Examination of the LL.B. Ignoring the marks of previous year. 4. The plaintiff's contention is that the Rule 21 of the Regulation 28 framed under the University of Rajputana Act, 1946 (for short 'the Act of 1946) specifically provides that the marks of the two examinations. Previous and Final will count together for a place on the pass list of the Final Examination. Therefore, the University should have prepared a merit list after including the marks obtained in the previous year examination in the marks obtained in the final year examination, which makes the plaintiff-respondent at position one in the complete course of the LL.B. Examination. The trial court as well as first appellate court decided in favour of the plaintiff by judgments and decrees dated 23.8.1975 and 19.4.1990. The defendant No. 2 appellant, therefore, preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the judgment and the decree of the courts below, submitted that since both the candidates appeared in the LL.B. Part-I Examination long ago, before enactment of the Rule 21 of the Act of 1946, therefore, the marks obtained prior to coming Into force of the Rule 21 cannot be included. Therefore, the University was right in preparing the mark sheet according to the marks obtained In the final year examination. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that in the educational matter, the position of the University is that of a body of experts, therefore, its decision is required to be respected and the Court should be slow in interfering in such matters. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that in the educational matter, the position of the University is that of a body of experts, therefore, its decision is required to be respected and the Court should be slow in interfering in such matters. 6. After going through the record and the relevant provisions of the Rule 21 of the Act of 1946, it is clear that the marks of the two examinations namely Previous as well as Final are to be clubbed together for placing a successful candidate at right position in the list of the pass candidates. Admittedly, if the marks of two examinations are taken together, the respondent No. 1 plaintiff is having more marks than the defendant No. 1 appellant. The Rule 21 of the Act of 1946 Is as under: "For both the Previous and the Final Examinations candidates must obtain for a pass at least 48% of the aggregate i.e. 336 marks, provided that if a candidate falls to secure 36 percent marks in any individual paper, he will be deemed to have failed in the examination notwithstanding his having obtained the minimum percentage of marks required in the aggregate for the examination. The marks of the two examinations. Previous and Final will count together for a place on the pass list of the Final Examination. No division will be assigned to the result of the Previous Examination. To be declared successful in the additional paper a candidate shall be required to secure 48% of the aggregate marks at the examination conducted after a regular course of study." 7. Since, it is admitted position that the Rule 21 of the Act of 1946 was there when the appellant and respondents appeared in the Final Examination. Therefore, the marks obtained should have been taken into account because of the simple reason that admittedly both the candidates appeared in the final examination only on the basis of marks obtained in the previous examination and the previous examination is the previous examination, which took place before the final examination in which the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 appeared. Therefore, very foundation for appearance in final yea', examination is the previous examination, which both the candidates took and passed. Therefore, very foundation for appearance in final yea', examination is the previous examination, which both the candidates took and passed. It Is not In dispute that both the candidates appeared in the examination of the final year after the coming Into force of the Rule 21 of the Act of 1946 on the basis of succeeding in previous year's examination. Rule 21 specifically provides inclusion of marks of the two examinations and there is no provisions, which provides that in any situation only marks of the final examination can be accepted for preparing a list of passed candidates of the course. It is further relevant to mention here that the words used In the Rule 21 of the Act of 1946 even says "will count together for a place on the pass list of Final Examination", therefore, even for final examination, the previous year marks are required to be counted for placing the candidate at proper place. Rules 21 also says that "No division will be assigned to the result of the Previous Examination." After this, there hardly remains any reason to take a different view, then to hold that marks of both the years are required to be taken into account for placing a candidate in the merit list for the Course LL.B. 8. It is also admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment and decree of the trial court was challenged by the Rajasthan University by filing first appeal and no further appeal was filed by the Rajasthan University challenging the judgment and decree dated 19th April, 1990. This fact itself shows that the respondent University feels satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court after it was upheld by the appellate court. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the courts should not Interfere with the decision of the educational Institution, has no 1 application to the facts of this case rather it goes against the appellant, as decision of the University of Rajasthan, not to appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19th April, 1990 and thereby it becomes a decision the educational institution not to challenge the judgment and decree, that goes against the appellant and not against the respondent in any manner. 9. I do not find any substantial question law is involved in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant dismissed with costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******