Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 427 (GAU)

Nilanjana Ahom v. Dibrugarh University

2009-06-23

AMITAVA ROY

body2009
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The Petitioner who had been declared to have passed the B.A. (Pt-III) final examination, 2008 conducted under the aegis of the Dibrugarh University (hereafter referred to as the 'University') by securing 1st class with major in Economics is now in a quandary being faced with the impugned corrigendum dated 13.12.2008 proclaiming her to have failed in the said examination. Being distraught and disenchanted by the indifference disposition of the University to her representations for necessary remedial intervention, she is before this Court for redress. 2. I have heard Mr. C. Baruah, Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the University. 3. The Petitioner's account of facts discloses that, she had been a regular student of Three Years (Arts) (1+1+1) Examination Course of the University and had appeared in the TDC Pt-III (Arts) Examination, 2008 (hereafter for short, also referred to as the 'Examination') from Manohari Devi Kanoi Girls College, Dibrugarh (for short, hereafter referred to as the 'College') with Roll 100 No. A-219. The results of the said examination declared by the University on 30.6.2008 disclosed her to have passed in 1st Class with major in Economics. According to the Petitioner, she thereafter appeared the Management Aptitude Test (MAT) conducted on 7.9.2008 and following her application for Masters Degree in Business Administration at Darwin School of Business, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati, was admitted in the said institute to pursue the aforementioned course. While the Petitioner was thus scrupulously attending her classes, she on 14.12.2008 could come to learn that her results in the TDC Part-II-III (Arts) Examination, 2008 so declared, had been unilaterally reversed by the University vide the impugned corrigendum dated 13.12.2008 issued by the Controller of Examinations, Dibrugarh University showing her to have failed. The Petitioner being utterly dismayed by the sudden turn of events, submitted a representation before the Controller of Examinations, Dibrugarh University on 15.12.2009 seeking to be apprised with the complaint occasioning the revision of her results, highlighting inter alia that the action taken without affording any opportunity of defence to her, was apparently in violation of the principles of natural justice. Though, the representation was received by the authority concerned, corrective steps were not taken impelling her to solicit judicial intervention. 4. Though, the representation was received by the authority concerned, corrective steps were not taken impelling her to solicit judicial intervention. 4. The University in its affidavit affirmed by its Controller of Examinations while admitting that, at the first instance she was declared to have passed the examination by securing a 1st Class, on a scrutiny of her answer scripts in 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th papers in Economics (Major), she was found to have secured the following marks: The University, therefore, asserted that the Petitioner actually had failed in the 6th and 9th papers wherein she had secured only 28 and 26 out of 100 marks each and therefore, she had failed in the examination. It was maintained that the marks folio/mark sheets and tabulation-sheet which had been prepared on the basis of her answer scripts were tampered and forged in order to represent that the Petitioner had secured 1st Class in all the papers. The deponent elaborated that one Rubi Gogoi of Lakhimpur District had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2000 to be informed about the marks awarded to her in Anthropology Paper-III of TDC Pt-II (Arts) Examination, 2008, pursuant to which a preliminary scrutiny was made by the University in course of which it was detected that the Roll No. as well as Registration No. of the candidate on the front page of the answer script and the mark folios had been tampered with. This issue having been placed before the emergency meeting of the Examination Committee of the University convened on 22.7.08, it was resolved that a thorough enquiry be made by the Examination branch into this episode and findings be submitted at the earliest. By its subsequent resolution dated 30.7.2008, the Examination Committee set up another committee comprising of (1) Prof. G.C. Hazarika, (2) Prof. B.K. Baruah, (3) Prof. K.C. Baruah with Dr. P.K. Kakati, DCB-B as the Presenting Officer to submit its report on the issue within 15 days. In its next meeting convened on 11.8.08, the Examination Committee was informed by Dr. H.C. Mahanta, Deputy Controller of Examinations that some irregularities in the form of tampering in the mark folio sheet as well as tabulation sheets of TDC (Part-III), Examination, 2008 (in Arts) in respect of a candidate of Manohari Devi Kanoi Girls College, Dibrugarh had been detected. In its next meeting convened on 11.8.08, the Examination Committee was informed by Dr. H.C. Mahanta, Deputy Controller of Examinations that some irregularities in the form of tampering in the mark folio sheet as well as tabulation sheets of TDC (Part-III), Examination, 2008 (in Arts) in respect of a candidate of Manohari Devi Kanoi Girls College, Dibrugarh had been detected. The Examination Committee on a scrutiny of the relevant documents and upon due discussion vide resolution No. 3 of the same date resolved to get the matter enquired into by the Committee constituted on 30.7.08. According to the University, on 26.9.08, the said Committee submitted its report with the conclusion that there has been manipulation of marks of a particular candidate with major in Economics of TDC Pt-III (Arts) Examination, 2008 of the aforementioned college. The report as well as the statements of various witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Committee, having revealed manipulations of mark folios and tabulation sheets to enhance the marks of the Petitioner, the same was placed before the Executive Council in its 292nd meeting held on 29.7.08. The Deputy Controller of Examinations (B) vide his letter dated 14.10.08 also confirmed to have rechecked the answer sheets and the mark folios of the candidates of Economics (Major) of the abovenamed college to substantiate that the marks obtained by the candidate with Roll 100 No. 219 were not genuine. The deponent averred that on receipt of the said letter in the capacity of the Controller of Examinations, he had forwarded the same to the Registrar of the University. The matter thereafter was discussed by the Examination Committee in its meeting held on 3.12.08 which, eventually resolved to review the results of the Petitioner on the basis of the marks actually secured by her as demonstrated by her answer scripts in Economic (Major). The impugned corrigendum was issued thereafter. The deponent disclosed that the Registrar on receipt of the letter dated 14.10.08 of the Deputy Controller of Examinations (B), by his note dated 12.12.08 had ordered random checking amongst others of the results of all candidates of the said college who had secured 1st Class. However, following such a scrutiny by the Deputy Controller of Examinations (B), the aforementioned manipulations were detected only in respect of the Petitioner which was duly conveyed to the deponent on 26.12.08. However, following such a scrutiny by the Deputy Controller of Examinations (B), the aforementioned manipulations were detected only in respect of the Petitioner which was duly conveyed to the deponent on 26.12.08. The University has disclosed in its affidavit that at the relevant time, the father of the Petitioner Sri Amulya Ahom had been officiating as the Assistant Registrar (Examinations), Dibrugarh University and vide Order No. DU/Ex/2005/1319-29 dated 18.3.2005, he was entrusted inter alia with the duty to arrange for scrutiny and tabulation of all examinations as well as announcement of results. It has been averred that he has since been transferred to the post of Assistant Registrar (Administration), pursuant to the order No. DU/Estt./A/OP/335/85/11663 dated 29.9.08. While insisting that such a review of the results of the Petitioner was not only permissible as per Clause 65 of the Dibrugarh University Examination Ordinance, 1972 (hereafter referred to as the 'Ordinance') as well, but also warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, the answering Respondent has maintained that in respect of the Petitioner's representations, she had been intimated by letter dated 31.12.08 of the Controller of Examinations that the review of her results was based on actual marks awarded in her answer scripts. 5. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, Mr. Baruah has assertively urged that viewed from the perspective of the scheme of the Ordinance which enumerates the successive stages of the process of the evaluation of the answer scripts, preparation of mark sheets and tabulations of results before declaring the same, there is an inbuilt presumption of validity thereof and therefore the unilateral revision of the Petitioner's results in the purported exercise of powers under Clause 65 is impermissible. No anomaly whatsoever admittedly having been detected while processing her results in terms of the prescriptions of the Ordinance, the impugned corrigendum being in arbitrary invocation of Clause 65 of the Ordinance is liable to be adjudged non est, he contended. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Senior Counsel argued that in any view of the matter, as the decision impugned visits the Petitioner with severe civil consequences, apart from tarnishing her reputation, the same having taken without affording any opportunity to her to represent against it, it is in palpable violation of the principles of natural justice rendering it null and void. According to Mr. According to Mr. Baruah, Clause 65 of the Ordinance does not envisage a situation of the kind to justify the application thereof and on that count as well, the impugned decision is illegal and indefensible in law. The Petitioner having not applied for either re-evaluation of her answer scripts or revision of her results, the impugned action besides being unauthorized, is uncalled for and therefore is liable to be interfered with, he urged. The learned Senior Counsel pleaded that the Petitioner on the basis of her results initially declared, has already taken admission in the next course and that therefore, if the impugned corrigendum is allowed to stand, it would jeopardize her academic career and resulting in irreparable loss and prejudice. To endorse his arguments, Mr. Baruah placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in-- (1) (2007) 1 SCC 603 , President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Ors. Appellants v. D. Suvankar and Anr., Respondents; (2) (2007) 3 SCC 587 , State of Maharashtra, Appellant v. Public Concern for Governance Trust and Ors. Respondents; 6. Responding to the above, Mr. Agarwal has maintained that in the case in hand manipulations, which are manifest in the marks folios/mark sheets and tabulation etc., when compared with the marks recorded in her answer scripts, unerringly demonstrate a deliberate endeavour to improve her results by unfair means. Referring to the relevant records in original, appurtenant to the process of scrutiny undertaken, the learned Counsel has argued that the impugned action is assuredly authorized by Clause 65 of the Ordinance and therefore, cannot be faulted with in the face of the overwhelming disclosures in the inquest preceding the same, Mr. Agarwal has taken this Court through the various provisions of the Dibrugarh University Act, 1965 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act'), the first statute and the first Ordinance framed thereunder as well as the Ordinance to contend that the Examination Committee is a representative unit of the University authorized to undertake the scrutiny resorted to and that the impugned corrigendum issued by the Controller of Examinations is valid and competent in law. The learned Counsel has urged that the records establish a fraud on the institution and though no direct evidence against the Petitioner is forthcoming, she having regard to the consequential dividends is indubitably the ultimate beneficiary thereof and thus cannot legitimately complain against the decision impugned. Mr. The learned Counsel has urged that the records establish a fraud on the institution and though no direct evidence against the Petitioner is forthcoming, she having regard to the consequential dividends is indubitably the ultimate beneficiary thereof and thus cannot legitimately complain against the decision impugned. Mr. Agarwal has emphatically urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the disclosures in the enquiry, no different conclusion(s) could have been arrived at even if an opportunity would have been extended to the Petitioner and that therefore the plea of unfairness is wholly misplaced. The learned Counsel insisted that having regard to the nature of the manipulations detected and the autonomy of the academic institution involved, this Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review ought not to interfere with the impugned action in the interest of transparency in the examination process and the credibility of the University. The following decisions were relied upon -- (1) (1988) 1 GLJ 183, Pranab Kr. Dey v. The Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh (2) (1991) 2 SCC 716 , Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi. (3) (2000) 3 SCC 59 , Chairman, Jandk State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik. (4) (2000) 7 SCC 529 , Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan etc. 7. The pleadings of the parties and the arguments based thereon project principally two issues, namely, permissibility of revision of the results by invoking Clause 65 of the Ordinance, and if so, fairness of the action for want of prior opportunity to the Petitioner. Noticeably, the Petitioner has not questioned, in particular, the competence of the Examination Committee in conducting the scrutiny and of the Controller of Examinations, Dibrugarh University to issue the impugned corrigendum. Be that as it may, before recalling the pleaded facts for the purpose of present adjudication, apt it would be to have a bird's eye view of the relevant legal provisions. The University, which is established by the Dibrugarh University Act, 1965, is a body constituted by the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, Rector and the members of the Court, the Executive Council as well as the Academic Council and has a perpetual succession and a common seal, and is entitled to sue and is liable to be sued by the same name. The University, which is established by the Dibrugarh University Act, 1965, is a body constituted by the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, Rector and the members of the Court, the Executive Council as well as the Academic Council and has a perpetual succession and a common seal, and is entitled to sue and is liable to be sued by the same name. Section 4 of the Act empowers it, amongst others, to hold examinations and to grant a degree, diploma, certificate or other academic distinctions as well as to deprive persons of any degree, diploma, certificate or distinction granted to or conferred upon them for good and sufficient cause. Clause-xviii of Section 4 authorizes it to do all such other acts and things whether incidental to the powers specifically enumerated or not as may be required to further its objects. The Vice Chancellor of the University, which is one of its officers as per Section 7 of the Act is, amongst others, entrusted with the duty to ensure that the Act, the Statutes, the Ordinance and the Regulations contemplated thereby are duly observed. The Authorities of the University as prescribed by Section 14 include the Executive Council, which is a designated to the Chief Executive Body of the University. The Vice Chancellor along with others mentioned in Section 17 constitute the same. Section 18 empowers the Executive Council to, inter alia, constitute an Examination Committee and to arrange for holding of, conducting and publishing the results of Examinations. Section 18(J) ordains that the powers and duties of the Examination Committee would be determined by an Ordinance. Clause (p) confers on the Executive Council the authority to exercise all others powers of the University for which no specific provision has been made in the Act or in the Statutes. The Executive Council has been empowered to make the Statutes/Ordinances for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and in respect of all matters which are required to be or may be provided for thereby. The Executive Council has been empowered to make the Statutes/Ordinances for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and in respect of all matters which are required to be or may be provided for thereby. Apart therefrom, each of the Authorities of the University may, subject to the provisions of the Act, Statutes and Ordinances, make Regulations consistent therewith for the purpose of carrying out the duties and for exercising the powers assigned to the Authority concerned under Section 39, the Vice Chancellor and with his approval, the Rector or the Registrar may delegate any of his powers or duties imposed by or under the Act to an officer under his direct administrative control. Section 40(5) provides that the first Statutes, the first Ordinances and the Regulations of the University shall remain in force until new enactments of the same kind are made under the Act. 8. The first Statute made under the Act designates the Controller of Examinations also to be an Officer of the University along with others listed in Clause 7 thereof. The Controller of Examination under Clause 31(d) of the First Statute is to be the Secretary of the Examination Committee and is empowered to exercise such powers and discharge such duties as may be assigned to him by the Registrar in connection with the holding of, conducting and publishing the results of the University Examinations. The first Ordinance of the University vide Clause 24 thereof, provides that subject to the Control of the Executive Council, there shall be an Examination Committee. The constitution provided thereby affirms that the Controller of Examinations would be the Secretary thereof with the Vice Chancellor as its Chairman. Clause 25 enumerates the functions and duties of the Committee, which includes preparation of results of the examinations and report to the Executive Council with its recommendations for consideration and publication of the results, conduct research and investigation into the system of investigation and assessment and recommendation to the Executive Council for disciplinary measures against persons adopting unfair means in examinations. 9. A survey of the above provisions, therefore, unequivocally demonstrate the dominion of the Examination Committee headed by the Vice Chancellor of the University with the Controller of Examinations as its Secretary to be the principal body in the matter of administering the examinations of the University and matters ancillary and incidental thereto. 9. A survey of the above provisions, therefore, unequivocally demonstrate the dominion of the Examination Committee headed by the Vice Chancellor of the University with the Controller of Examinations as its Secretary to be the principal body in the matter of administering the examinations of the University and matters ancillary and incidental thereto. In the estimate of this Court, having regard to the schematic alignment of the powers and duties of the different authorities/officers of the University, the Examination Committee, therefore, had been within its jurisdiction to enquire into the reported manipulations in the mark folios/mark sheets and the tabulation sheets pertaining to the TDC Part-III Examination, 2008 and to take appropriate action based on the report of the enquiry committee constituted by it. 10. The Dibrugarh University Examination Ordinance, 1972 framed by the Executive Council exhaustively deals with the minutest details relating to conduct of the different types of examinations to be held by it as codified in Clause 3 thereof. Amongst the duties of the Examiners as enumerated in Clause 55, after the evaluation of the answer scripts, he/ she is required to enter the total marks secured by each candidate in the mark sheet in triplicate after arranging those in order of roll-numbers. He/she is, thereafter, obligated to pack and seal the answer-scripts with all due care and caution and despatch the packets to the appropriate authority. The mark sheets are to be sent in a separate sealed cover. 11. Clause 56 requires the Head Examiner to examine the answer scripts as prescribed mainly to ascertain under marking or over marking by any examiner and in this endeavour is to be assisted by scrutinizer for checking of marks in each script. The duties of a scrutinizer as scheduled in Clause 59 includes to ensure that marks recorded inside the scripts are duly entered in the mark sheets. Any anomaly/mistake, if detected by a scrutinizer has to be brought to the notice of the Head Examiner, who, if satisfied with regard thereto, would rectify the same appropriately. Following the scrutiny of the evaluated answer scripts as above, the marks are to be tabulated in the prescribed form by the tabulators appointed for the purpose by the Registrar or an authorised officer as is stipulated under Clause 62. Following the scrutiny of the evaluated answer scripts as above, the marks are to be tabulated in the prescribed form by the tabulators appointed for the purpose by the Registrar or an authorised officer as is stipulated under Clause 62. As soon as the results have been tabulated, the Examination Committee is to conduct a review of the general trend thereof and take necessary action. The Executive Council under Clause 64 is entitled to withhold the result of any candidate who is suspected of adopting any unfair means, till the final disposal of the case and if following an investigation it is satisfied that the charges are true, it may debar him from appearing in further examinations for one or more years. Clause 65 provides that of the approval by the proper authorities, the results would be finally published. The Vice Chancellor, as the clause suggests may, as well, order publication of the results in anticipation of the approval by the proper authorities. A right, however, is reserved to the University to revise the results once published, if it is so warranted after a scrutiny subsequent thereto. A candidate, under Clause 70, may apply through Head of the Department for re-evaluation of any script of any theory paper subject to a minimum of two papers in the examination, where he/she has appeared on payment of prescribed fees within 20 (twenty) days from the date of publication of the results. 12. Though, a detailed exercise phase wise is contemplated by the above provisions to make it free of anomalies/mistakes to the extent practicable, a provision for revision of the results published has been reserved on cogent and compelling grounds. Though, expectedly the entire process is to be prosecuted with exemplary vigilance, commitment and expertise, depending on myriad factors, possibility of mistakes or errors either unintentional or on deliberate interventions or impertinent considerations, having regard to the association of human agencies, cannot be totally ruled out. As the University is duty bound in law to guarantee declaration of authentic results in every examination it conducts, it would be in the comprehension of this Court too far fetched to deny its power in an appropriate fact situation to revise such results once published, if so demanded by the revelations or disclosures subsequent thereto justifying the same. As the University is duty bound in law to guarantee declaration of authentic results in every examination it conducts, it would be in the comprehension of this Court too far fetched to deny its power in an appropriate fact situation to revise such results once published, if so demanded by the revelations or disclosures subsequent thereto justifying the same. A perusal of the answer script of the Petitioner in 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th papers for Economic (Major) in BA (TDC) Part-III Examination, 2008, in original reveals that she had secured the following marks : Papers Marks In the marks folio, in original however, she has been shown to have secured the following: In the mark sheet (Annexure-A to the writ petition), the Petitioner has been awarded marks as follows: On a perusal of the entries in the answer script, mark folios and the mark sheets it is apparent that the marks shown to have been awarded to the Petitioner in the answer scripts stood enhanced in the mark folios and the mark sheet. In other words, the facts narrated in the affidavit of the University relating to the marks appearing in the answer scripts, mark folios and the mark sheet are borne out by the original documents. There is no denial of the fact that the pass marks in each paper is 30 and, therefore, having regard to the marks secured by the Petitioner as per the answer scripts, she had failed in 6th and 9th papers. 13. The official records reveal that instances of manipulation and forgery in the TDC Part-II Examination, 2008, under the DU Zone having been detected following an exercise made in response to an application submitted by an examinee Ms. Rubi Gogoi under the Right to Information Act, 2000, the Examination Committee of the University in its meeting held on 22.07.2008 by its resolution required the Examination Branch to conduct a thorough inquiry and submit its findings. The Committee in its subsequent meeting of 30.07.2008 was apprised of the disclosures in inquiry, which established the involvement of the staff of the University in the manipulation of roll/registration number on the answer scripts and mark folios of some candidates of the TDC Part-II Examination, 2008 in the DU Zone Office, wherein it was, inter alia, resolved to lodge an FIR with the police. A Committee constituted of Professor G.C. Hazarika, Professor B.K. Baruah and Professor K.C. Bora was entrusted with the responsibility of enquiring into the anomalies, In its next meeting held on 11.08.2008 to follow up these developments, an instance of some irregularities in the nature of tampering of mark folio sheets and the tabulation sets of TDC Part-III Examination, 2008 in Arts in respect of a candidate of MDKG College, Dibrugarh was reported. 14. The Examination Committee resolved to entrust the Committee set up by it on 30.07.2008 also with the task to enquire into this matter. The Controller of Examination of the University by his letter dated 13.08.2008 addressed to the Registrar, also reiterated detection of serious irregularities in respect of a candidate from the MDKG College, Dibrugarh appearing in Economics (Major) in the TDC Part-III Examination, 2008. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report on 26.09.2008 affirming manipulation of marks of a candidate of TDC Part-III (Major) Examination, 2008 belonging to the MDKG College, Dibrugarh. The report reveals that in course of the inquiry, the Committee had recorded the statements of the Examiners of the answer scripts in Economics (Major) Part-III, Examination, 2008 including those of the candidates appearing from the MDKG College, Dibrugarh, the Head Examiner, the tabulators and other officials of the University associated with the Examination. The report discloses admission on the part of the tabulators named therein, to have enhanced the marks of the candidate concerned so as to upgrade her results from 2nd Class of 1st Class. The Head Examiner also endorsed that all mark folios excluding that for Paper 5th were fake and not original and that even his signature had been manipulated. The Examiners as well stated that the marks folios prepared by them as well as their signatures had been tampered. A confessional statement of Shri Ghanashyam Saikia the then Assistant Controller of Examinations, disclosing the involvement of Dr. H.C. Mahanta, Deputy Controller of Examination in the manipulations of the mark folios of Economics (Major) of the MDKG College has also been referred to in the report. The Examination Committee on a consideration of the said report by its resolution dated 27.09.2008, placed Dr. H.C. Mahanta, Deputy Controller of Examination 'A' under suspension. The records contain documents to indicate that further steps towards disciplinary action against him and others have followed. 15. The Examination Committee on a consideration of the said report by its resolution dated 27.09.2008, placed Dr. H.C. Mahanta, Deputy Controller of Examination 'A' under suspension. The records contain documents to indicate that further steps towards disciplinary action against him and others have followed. 15. In its meeting dated 03.12.2008 the Examination Committee resolved to revise the result of the Petitioner on the basis of the marks actually secured by her as recorded in her answer scripts of Economics (Major). The impugned corrigendum followed accordingly. The records also demonstrate that a random checking of the answer scripts, marks folios and tabulation sets in respect of BA Part-III Examination, 2008 of Economics (Major) of all the Colleges revealed manipulations as above, in respect of the Petitioner only. Significantly, the Petitioner as on date, has not questioned the correctness of the marks said to have been secured by her as disclosed in her answer scripts and substantiated by the records. No application for re-evaluation or scrutiny of the answer scripts as well, had been made by her. In other words, the Petitioner, therefore, has assuredly accepted to have secured 28 and 26 in 6th and 9th paper in Economics (Major) of the TDC Part-III Examination, 2008. It cannot be gainsaid that the results of a candidate in any examination have to be essentially based on her performance evidenced by the marks awarded to her in her answer scripts. If the same do not suffer from any anomaly, the consequential result axiomatically cannot be faulted. If the marks secured by a candidate as testified by his/her answer scripts stand enhanced, in the successive stages of the process preceding the results, any interference, unless consciously sanctioned by the authorities empowered to do so, would be unauthorized and impermissible and would not entitle him/her to the benefit thereof. The scheme of the Ordinance which outlines the various phases of the process commencing from the evaluation of the answer scripts till the declaration of the results, unerringly evince that the performance of the candidate is to be assessed only from his/her answer scripts. The present is not a case of adoption of unfair means by the Petitioner in course of her examination. The obvious interferences had occurred after the evaluation of her answer scripts at the intermediate stages. The present is not a case of adoption of unfair means by the Petitioner in course of her examination. The obvious interferences had occurred after the evaluation of her answer scripts at the intermediate stages. The improvement in her marks as is attested by the mark folios and the mark sheets though to her benefit, the same being not the index of her performance in the Examination, as testified by her answer scripts she cannot insist on the results based thereon. As a matter of fact, she is not entitled in law thereto not having earned the same by her enterprise and perseverance expected of a student. Admittedly, the Petitioner has neither alleged mala fide against any of the authorities of the University nor asserted any foul play by them. In absence of any challenge by her to the authenticity of the marks awarded to her as disclosed by the answer scripts, which indubitably would form the foundation of her results, in the opinion of this Court, the plea of want of fairness in procedure is untenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The records bear out indisputable facts, which unequivocally proclaim that the Petitioner in view of the marks secured by her in 6th and 9th paper in Economics (Major) of TDC Part-III Examination, 2008 could not pass the same. The decisions relied upon on her behalf to reinforce the assertion of violation of the principles of natural justice, are thus of no avail to her. 16. In the face of the overwhelming materials on record justifying the revision of Petitioner's results, in the estimate of this Court, the impugned corrigendum issued in exercise of the residuary power lodged in Clause 65 of the Regulations thus cannot be proscribed as illegal, arbitrary or unconstitutional. The action taken by the University, as the records would establish cannot be denounced as unwarranted. Bearing in mind the solemn obligation of the academic institution involved to maintain the sanctity, certitude and authenticity of the examination process, it was in a way incumbent on it to adopt the course chartered by it. Having regard to the recognized autonomy of such an institution, in matters within the realm of its control and administration as well as the judicially recognized parameters for interference with its decisions thereon, I am of the unhesitant opinion that the assailment cannot be sustained. Having regard to the recognized autonomy of such an institution, in matters within the realm of its control and administration as well as the judicially recognized parameters for interference with its decisions thereon, I am of the unhesitant opinion that the assailment cannot be sustained. The petition in the result, is dismissed. No costs.