Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. CM no. 3218 of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CWP No. 18182 of 2009 The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for deleting the words PRS (Previous Result Stands) in the notification issued by the University on 12.1.2009. The petitioner is a student of M.Sc (Maths) and appeared as a private candidate in the examinations conducted by the University. She cleared Part 1 of the examination and obtained 230 out of 500 marks and was declared successful. She had taken the examination under Roll No. 18507 and obtained re-appear in two of the papers for which the Code No. was FLA 617 and TFA 618. She was put to re-appear examination in the month of March, 2008 which papers were Field Theory and Linear Algebra (FLA617) (ii) Theology and Functional Analysis (TFA618). The result of the re appear examination was declared in the month of October 2008 and according to which the petitioner obtained 33 marks out of 100 in FLA 617 and 26 marks 6ut of 100 in TFA 618. In the other subjects i.e PMS 661, she obtained 33/100 while in LNP 678 she obtained 63 out of 100 and SF1 675 she obtained 49 out pf 100. 2. The controversy however centres around two of the papers i.e. Code No. FLA617 and TFA618. The petitioner being dis-satisfied with the result in TFA618 applied for re-valuation/re-checking of the same. In the result of revaluation dated 2.8.2008, respondent-University has changed the marks of two subjects i.e. FLA 617 and TFA618 and which was as under. - FLA 617 changed marks from 33/100 to 26/100 TFA 618 changed marks from 26/100 to 21/100 It is thus the case of the petitioner that she passed the entire examination except in the subject of TFA 618. She had originally scored 26 out of 100 but after revaluation she obtained 21 marks out of 100. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the notification which was given out the result of the petitioner was shown as PRS (Previous Result Stands) and second detailed marks sheet was issued to her which show her marks in FLA 617 had been reduced from 33/100 to 26/100 whereas in TFA 618 where her marks were given as 26/100 were reduced to 21/100 after revaluation. 3. 3. With these grievances the petitioner has approached this Court to state that she had indeed qualified the examination and it is on account of the bungling at the ends of the respondents that she has been given out second detailed marks sheet and the result has been wrongly shown as PRS (Previous Result Stands) which indicated that she had not qualified the previous examinations. She prays for rectification of the result. 4. Upon notice of motion having been issued respondents have filed a reply in which they have have stated that the petitioner took the examination of M.Sc (Maths) Part II in the year 2008 and in two papers i.e FLA617 and TFA618 she has secured 26/100 and 21/100 respectively and it was purely on account of inadvertence that the detailed marks sheet issued in the first instance indicated the marks obtained by the petitioner as 33/100 in FLA 617 and 26/100 in TFA 618 and once the mistake was realised the corrected detailed marks sheet was issued to the petitioner with correction indicated against two subjects. It was pleaded that there had been no mala fides on their part and mistake was purely due to inadvertence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the mistake that the respondents have committed the petitioner has been deprived of a chance which she could have taken had she known the actual position. He refers to this chance as a golden chance which is offered by the respondents to the candidates who are desirous of improving or reappearing in their examination. He contends that this form was indeed issued to her by virtue of Annexure P-6 but after the result of revaluation having been declared and since that had given out the marks in FLA 617 as 33 instead of 26 she did not deem it necessary to take this chance as she had passed such examination. 6. It is thus the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner as she had been deprived of the opportunity to take that examination in the year 2009 and now even after such a chance is offered to her which is the case of the respondent-University then two valuable years have been lost in the process. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner in any case did not qualify the examination as Rule 9.1 of the Master of Arts Examination lays down the criteria of minimum marks as under: - "9.1 The minimum number of marks required to pass shall be as under:- (i) 33 per cent in each written paper. (ii) 45 per cent in each practical in the case of Music (iii) 45 per cent in each practical (Sessional Work and Practical Examination) in the case of Fine Arts; (iv) 33 per cent in thesis; (v) In the case of Geography: (a) 33 per cent in each written paper; (b) 33 per cent in Map work in Paper IV of (i) Part I and (ii)Part II and (c ) 33 per cent in Practical in Paper IV of (i) Part I and (ii) Part II. (vi) 40 per cent in the aggregate of each Part. 8. I have considered the matter in entirety. De hors the controversy regarding the petitioner obtaining 40 % marks in aggregate the fact remains that the respondents - University has been extremely callous in evaluating and giving out the result of the petitioner. Upon an application being made by the petitioner for re-valuation of the answer book in TFA618 they upgraded her marks from 26 to 33 which implied that the petitioner had passed the examination and in other subject in FLA 617 in the original marks sheet given out she had already been shown as receiving 33 marks out of 100 again indicating that she had passed the subject but amazingly, another marks sheet is issued to the petitioner in which her marks in both the subjects have been reduced i.e from 33 to 26 in FLA 617 and from 26 to 21 in TFA618. It is on account of this that notification contained the word PRS (Previous Result Stands). The Court during the course of proceedings had summoned the relevant answer book and the respondent-University produced only one answer book of the petitioner pertaining to FLA 617 and upon perusal thereof there, there does not seem to be any ambiguity in the marking. The petitioner indeed is getting 26 marks in this subject and apparently these were the marks given out. The petitioner indeed is getting 26 marks in this subject and apparently these were the marks given out. The petitioner never applied for revaluation in the other subject in which she had passed i.e FLA 617 which had initially indicated her marks as 33 but even in that her marks have been reduced ostensibly on the plea that the answer book was verified once again and the mistake was discovered. The Court then wanted the counsel for the University to show the answer books in which the revaluation had been got done and the reply of the University is that the said answer book has been destroyed as is normally done after a period of two years. 9. The Court views this disapprovingly for the reason that the petition regarding the dispute of her marks in two of the subjects was pending before this Court by way of the instant petition and this should have been sufficient notice to the respondents not to destroy any material pertaining to the controversy. It is thus evident that the respondents have treated the case of the petitioner with extreme callousness which has resulted in severe prejudice to her. It has not only demonstrated careless attitude of the University to the entire examination, valuation and revaluation process and also reveals a apathetic state of affairs, which this case reveals and which may be a tip of the iceberg. The Court cannot condone such a lapse moreso when it has resulted in loss of two valuable years to the petitioner. Her marks sheet may not be a manifestation of the record of a bright student but at the same time the chance that she could have got to improve her performance has been wrested away from her on account of the lackadaisical attitude of the University. 10. it is thus directed by accepting the petition partly that the respondents shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to clear her examination by holding a special examination for her in the month of May 2011 in both the aforesaid subjects. For the loss that they have caused to the petitioner, the University shall compensate the petitioner by paying costs of Rs.50,000/-. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of