Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1130 (RAJ)

Surendra Singh Meena v. J. N. V. University

2006-04-10

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-The petitioner qualified Bachelor of Engineering Examination as a regular student of MBM Engineering College, University of Jodhpur in the year 1986. A statement of marks pertaining to B.E. Final (Annual Scheme) Examination, 1986 was issued by the Registrar of the University of Jodhpur in favour of the petitioner on 23.04.1987, a provisional certificate in this regard was also issued by the University on 08.05.1987. 2. On basis of the qualification acquired the petitioner was employed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) with Rajasthan State Electricity Board under an order dated 11.08.1987. In the month of March,1994, the petitioner received a communication dated 26.02.1994 from the Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (earlier known as the University of Jodhpur) calling upon the petitioner to deposit the marks-sheet dated 23.04.1987 and provisional degree dated 08.05.1987 being issued wrongly by declaring the petitioner passed, though he was not entitled for getting grace marks. 3. Being aggrieved by the communication dated 26.02.1994 the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Court at its Jaipur Bench and the same was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1312 of 1994. The writ petition came to be rejected by the Judgment dated 07.09.1994 on the count that the cause of action was not accrued within the jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench of this Court and, therefore, the petition for writ could not be maintained at Jaipur. A special Appeal preferred against the Judgment dated 07.09.1994 before the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur also came to be rejected by Judgment dated 12.02.1996 with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition for writ at Jodhpur. 4. It is pertinent to note here that in the Writ Petition No. 1312 of 1994 a reply was filed on behalf of the University stating therein that the direction to surrender mark-sheet and provisional certificate was given in pursuant to a resolution of Syndicate of the University dated 23.03.1991 to cancel the examination of the petitioner being not entitled for getting grace marks, which were allowed to him due to bona fide error. The petitioner then preferred the instant petition for writ before this Court at Jodhpur giving challenge to the communication dated 26.02.1994 and also to the resolution of the Syndicate of the University dated 23.03.1991. 5. The petitioner then preferred the instant petition for writ before this Court at Jodhpur giving challenge to the communication dated 26.02.1994 and also to the resolution of the Syndicate of the University dated 23.03.1991. 5. While giving challenge to the communication dated 26.02.1994 and the resolution dated 23.03.1991, it is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the cancelling of the examination after a lapse of about a period of 8 years is unjust and arbitrary, as such is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the University stating therein that in fact the petitioner was not entitled for getting grace marks in the subject of Elective 1- Electrical Machines and Design but due to some bona fide error grace marks were awarded and the petitioner was declared passed. The University by the communication impugned wanted to rectify a bona fide error, therefore, no illegality at all is committed by the University while initiating proceedings for cancellation of examination. 7. It is further contended on behalf of the University that a committee constituted by the Syndicate after holding regular inquiry reached at the conclusion that because of some bona fide error on part of Tabulators certain errors crepted in tabulation and, therefore, grace marks were awarded to the petitioner for which he was not entitled. The Syndicate of the University by its resolution dated 23.03.1991 accepted the recommendations made by the inquiry committee and resolved to cancel the B.E. Final Examination, 1986 to which the marks-sheet dated 23.04.1987 pertains. 8. Heard Counsel for the parties. 9. It is the position admitted that the petitioner appeared in the B.E. Final Examination in the year 1986 and he was declared passed in the examination in the month of April 1987 and in regard to it a provisional degree was also issued by the University. On basis of the qualification aforesaid the petitioner was employed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) with Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The Syndicate of the University, in the year 1991 i.e., after more than three years from the date of declaration of the result of B.E. Examination in which the petitioner appeared, reached at the conclusion that grace marks were erroneously granted to the petitioner and, therefore, resolved to cancel his B.E. Final Examination. The Syndicate of the University, in the year 1991 i.e., after more than three years from the date of declaration of the result of B.E. Examination in which the petitioner appeared, reached at the conclusion that grace marks were erroneously granted to the petitioner and, therefore, resolved to cancel his B.E. Final Examination. There cannot be two opinions that the University is having a right to rectify a bona fide error but if such an error cannot be corrected without breaking open or affecting the rights of innocent persons who was not aware of the existence of the error when his rights accrued and on basis of such right further independent rights came into existence and if such error cannot be rectified without interfering with the new independent rights accrued then the interest of justice demands to validate such error instead of giving rise to highly unjust and arbitrary consequence of its rectification. 10. In the instant matter as stated above the petitioner was declared passed in B.E. examination in the year 1987 and at that time he was not aware that he was not entitled for any grace marks and the same were granted to him erroneously. The petitioner on basis of the qualification acquired has already been employed with Rajasthan State Electricity Board. He is in employment of the Board for the last number of years. In the event the respondent University be permitted to cancel the examination undertaken by the petitioner for Bachelor of Engineering in the year 1986, then the same shall make the petitioner ineligible to be employed as Junior Engineer with Rajasthan State Electricity Board (as it was known at the time appointment was given to the petitioner ). It is also well settled that if any error is crepted then it is to be rectified at the earliest. An authority who is having a power to take action in such a matter should always exercise such power at the earliest and within a reasonable time. The exercise of powers by the University in the present matter for rectification of the error is made after a lapse of 8 years, and, therefore, undoubtedly it is having evil consequences. The interest of justice in this matter warrants that whatever error crepted in issuing mark sheet of B.E. Final Examination of the petitioner be validated. 11. Accordingly, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. The interest of justice in this matter warrants that whatever error crepted in issuing mark sheet of B.E. Final Examination of the petitioner be validated. 11. Accordingly, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. The same, therefore, is allowed. The resolution of the University dated 23.03.1991 and the communication dated 26.02.1994 issued by the Registrar of the respondent-University are declared illegal to the extent they pertain to cancellation of B.E. Final Examination 1986 undertaken by the petitioner. 12. No orders as to costs. S