Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 118 (KER)

Lissy Cleatus v. Mahatma Gandhi University

2010-02-08

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

body2010
Judgment : The petitioner seeks for a re-declaration of results and to award Second Class to her, as she has obtained 49.9% marks. According to the petitioner, this can be rounded off to 50%, so that she will get a Second Class. 2. The petitioner was a private student for the course M.A. English conducted by the first respondent University for the academic year 2006-2008. Ext.P1 is the mark list showing that she has passed all the examinations. The petitioner obtained a total of 1094 out of 2200 marks. She applied for a revaluation of 4 out of 21 papers. 3. One of the papers to which revaluation sought is Politics of Narration. Her original marks were 32 which was enhanced to 40 on revaluation. In terms of the guidelines a secondary revaluation was done, wherein the marks were reduced to 30. On the basis of relevant guidelines, viz.No.16(c), the average marks was taken as 35 and the original marks were thus enhanced from 32 to 35. One third of the same will be added as internal marks which will make it to 46. Accordingly, in the final tally the marks thus increased to 1098/2200. 4. According to the petitioner, with respect to paper XII, original marks were enhanced by 3 marks and the total became 35 on revaluation. But the benefit was not extended in the light of guideline No.16(b). This is also under challenged in this writ petition. 5. The first question is whether the petitioner is entitled for a declaration that she has secured 50% marks for awarding Second Class, as the percentage of the total marks awarded is 49.909%. For this purpose, the petitioner is relying upon the principles of rounding off. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others {(2005) 2 SCC 10. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, reported in Miss Parul Agarwal v. University of Rajasthan (2002 AIR (Raj) 70) and another decision of the very same High Court in Dr. Rajiv Mangal v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & another (AIR 2007 Raj. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, reported in Miss Parul Agarwal v. University of Rajasthan (2002 AIR (Raj) 70) and another decision of the very same High Court in Dr. Rajiv Mangal v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & another (AIR 2007 Raj. 186) My attention was drawn to para 11 of the judgment is Miss Parul Agarwal’s case (supra) wherein, with regard to the question of rounding off, it was held thus: “In the marks-sheets of graduation examination issued by the University of Rajasthan to Vivek Sharma and Gajendra Pareek it was indicated in Note 5 that if the marks worked out are infraction the same shall be raised to the next higher whole number. In Ghanshyam Sharma v. The Principal St. Patrioks Vidya Bhawan (2000) 4 W.L.C. (Raj) 159 those students who secured 60% or above marks were given provisional admission and the student who obtained 59.5% marks was given the benefit of round figure of 60%. Both the petitioners Vivek Sharma and Gajendra Pareek in the instant case as already stated secured 49.93% marks and the University of Rajasthan ought to have given them the benefit of round figure of 50% by raising the fraction to the next higherwhole number.” It was a case of admission to MBA course wherein 50% marks in the graduation examination was necessary. Obviously, Note 5 provided application of the principle of rounding off. Herein, such a provision is absent. 7. In the later decision in Dr. Rajiv Mangal’s case (AIR 2007 Raj. 186), the matter related to admission to P.G. medical course. It was based on Entrance Examination. Therein, the judgment in Miss Parul Agarwal’s case (supra) was considered, but distinguished. Therein, in the Regulation 50% marks had been prescribed as minimum percentage for admission and therefore the principle of rounding off was not applied. The observation contained in para 20 is in the following terms, after considering a decision of the Apex Court reported in Mridul Dhar (minor) and another v. Union of India and others ({(2005) 2 SCC 65): “In the light of the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court in the afore-referred case, we have no hesitation in holding that the expression “the minimum percentage of marks ….. shall be 50% has to be read to mean at least 50% of the total marks and by applying the process of rounding off, the eligibility cannot be provided which a candidate failed to achieve in the competitive examination. The rule of rounding off though founded on logic and common sense would not be attracted in the context of Regulation 7 framed by the Medical Council of India.” 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the University relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5296/2005 and that of a Division Bench in W.A.No.2707/1999. The matter considered therein related to admission to B.Ed. Course wherein the principle of rounding off was not applied by this Court. The minimum percentage required for pas is 45% and in that view of the matter, it was held that the petitioner therein who got only 44% marks, cannot get admission. The argument regarding the principle of rounding off was rejected by the Division Bench in the following words: “There is no dispute even from the appellant that the minimum marks required for admission to B.Ed. degree course is 45% at the graduation level. Admittedly by the appellant/writ petitioner she got only 44.7% marks at the graduation level. It is below 45%. Therefore, there arises no question of rounding it up when eligibility is considered. As per the University Regulations also, one shall have at least 45% marks for getting admission to B.Ed. degree course.” 9. Herein, even though reliance is placed on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Miss Parul Agarwal’s case (supra), a reading of the judgment shows that therein the principle of rounding off was applied by relying upon Note 5 which indicated that if the marks worked out are in fraction the same shall be raised to the next higher whole number. In the absence of such a provision, the same method cannot be adopted herein and therefore as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, the view taken by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2707/1999 applies to the facts of this case. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that on revaluation the marks have been enhanced to 35 and the percentage has been correctly taken. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that on revaluation the marks have been enhanced to 35 and the percentage has been correctly taken. There is no question of rounding of the percentage here since that will result in enhancement of the marks by one or two, to achieve the percentage of 50. Since the same will cross the revaluation marks, what is adopted by the University is perfectly legal and valid. It is clear from the guidelines that what was adopted by the University is perfectly in order. In the first revaluation the petitioner got enhancement of 40 and then in the secondary revaluation it was reduced to 30. The average of the same has been taken as 35 which is taken as the basis now. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, then again one or two marks will have to be added for arriving at the percentage of 50. This cannot be done obviously, as that will be in excess of the marks obtained in the revaluation. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in declining the request made by the petitioner and the decision cannot be stated to be as arbitrary. There is no enabling clause in the guidelines to round off the percentage. The principle of rounding off will not therefore obviously apply to such circumstances, as 50% is required to have a second class. 11. The second contention is regarding the validity of Rule 16(b) of Ext:P5 which reads as follows: “If the revalued marks exceed the marks secured in the original valuation by 5% or above up to 9% of the maximum marks, the revalued marks shall be taken as the final marks, and the marks secured by the candidates in the original valuation shall be changed accordingly” It is not the case of the petitioner that the same is one adopted exceeding the power conferred on the University. The by-laws, regulations and the examination rules have been framed by the respective bodies of the University after assessing various aspects. This Court will be loathe to interfere with the same and the wisdom of the academic bodies will have to be respected. This Court will not be justified in interfering with the decision of an academic body which is a well accepted principle. It cannot be said that the said course is arbitrary or illegal in any sense. 12. This Court will be loathe to interfere with the same and the wisdom of the academic bodies will have to be respected. This Court will not be justified in interfering with the decision of an academic body which is a well accepted principle. It cannot be said that the said course is arbitrary or illegal in any sense. 12. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in regard to the said course also. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.