Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1821 (PNJ)

Pranay Kawduji Barapatre v. Panjab University

2007-10-10

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition has been filed with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No. 2, University Business School, Panjab University, Chandigarh, order dated 6.10.2004 (Annexure P-6), passed by respondent No. 3, i.e. the Controller of Examination, Panjab University, Chandigarh and also for quashing notification dated 4.10.2004 (Annexure P-7). 2. The effect of the impugned orders is that the result of the petitioner has been revised and he has been advised to return the Detailed Marks Card already issued. A further direction has been given to apply for re-appear examination to be held in April 2005. 3. The case developed by the petitioner is that he passed his matriculation in first division and thereafter passed his 10+2 examination with good marks. The petitioner, thereafter joined B-Pharmacy, a four year course and passed the same in the year 2001. The petitioner was short listed and selected for Master of Business Administration, International Business (hereinafter referred to as `MBA-IB) with respondent No. 2 in the year 2001. He was issued Students Registration Card by respondent No. 1 as also registration number. The MBA-IB course is for two years duration having semester system. The petitioner successfully qualified all the semesters. The Detailed Marks Cards in evidence of the averment have been appended as Annexure P-1 to P-4. The petitioner has clearly been shown as having passed all the papers as is demonstrated from Annexure P-4, i.e. Detailed Marks Card of MBA-IB, which was held in April, 2003. Notification was also issued. 4. Having acquired the required qualification, the petitioner applied for a job and was selected and appointed by M/s. Aryandoctor.com.Delhi in the month of August 2003. He continued working till October 2003. Thereafter, he was appointed at INSCOL Academy, Chandigarh, w.e.f. November, 2003. In the month of January, 2004, the petitioner was appointed with Dr. Reddys Labs, Chandigarh. In the month of September 2004, the petitioner was appointed with M/s. Widex India Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter, with ICICI Bank Limited in the month of August 2005, where the petitioner has been serving. 5. In the month of January, 2004, the petitioner was appointed with Dr. Reddys Labs, Chandigarh. In the month of September 2004, the petitioner was appointed with M/s. Widex India Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter, with ICICI Bank Limited in the month of August 2005, where the petitioner has been serving. 5. The petitioner received a letter on 11.10.2004 addressed by the Panjab University, Chandigarh along with another letter/order written by the Controller of Examination dated 6.10.2004, wherein it has been shown that the result is being revised from pass to re-appear. These orders have been impugned in this petition. Similarly the order dated 4.10.2004 was passed with similar effect. 6. The petitioner upon receiving the letters/orders approached respondent No. 2 and personally contacted the Chairman. However, an assurance was given that the matter would be looked into. Thereafter, when no response was received, a representation dated 28.2.2007 was made which has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. Another representation was given to the Panjab University respondent No. 1 on 29.3.2007 (Annexure P-9). The Controller of Examination i.e. respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 8.8.2007 (Annexure P11) advised the petitioner that he should avail special chance for re-appear. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out that the authorities are competent to rectify a bona fide mistake even if there has been no fraud or mis-representation on the part of the candidate. Regulation 29 of Panjab University Calendar Volume II empowers the Syndicate of the respondent University to revise the result, after declaration, in case any mistake is found therein. The result of the petitioner has been revised on detection of mistake in computation of grace marks secured in internal assessment. While the petitioner was entitled to (02) marks only worked out on the basis of University examination, after exclusion of internal assessment, as against (03) marks inadvertently awarded to him while computing his result for MBA (IB)IV Semester Examination held in April, 2003. He was, therefore, declared `Pass inadvertently whereas his result should have been shown `Re- appear. 8. We have considered the rival contentions. 9. On a consideration of facts collectively, we find that the result was declared on 5.8.2003, whereby the petitioner was declared pass. Admittedly, the said result was notified. On the strength of the certificate, thus obtained the petitioner applied for job and has been employed since then with one employer or the other. 8. We have considered the rival contentions. 9. On a consideration of facts collectively, we find that the result was declared on 5.8.2003, whereby the petitioner was declared pass. Admittedly, the said result was notified. On the strength of the certificate, thus obtained the petitioner applied for job and has been employed since then with one employer or the other. It is for the first time in October, 2004, i.e. after 14 months that the respondents have revised the result thereby asking the petitioner to re-appear. 10. It is not in dispute that the respondents have revised the result of the petitioner without hearing him. It is also not disputed that petitioner had not played any fraud or misrepresentation so as to interfere with the process. Other than this we find that the result has been revised after 14 months of the initial declaration within which time the petitioner had settled in life. If any action was to be taken under the regularisation on account of some error, the same should have been done within reasonable time. Surely delay of 14 months is not justifiable. 11. Considering the fact that the petitioner was not heard before the impugned action was taken and also the fact that the result has been revised and changed to re-appear from pass after unexplained and undue delay, we find the action of the respondents to be totally arbitrary and unreasonable. 12. We, accordingly, allow the petition and quash the impugned letters/orders. Petition allowed.