Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 911 (HP)

RAJNI DEVI v. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY

2013-10-24

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M. KHANWILKAR 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2. BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is taking exception to letter bearing No.4 -1/2011 HPVV, dated 3rd August, 2013, Annexure P -5, and circular, dated 16th February, 2012, issued by the University, Annexure P -6. The petitioner had appeared for B.A. final examination from respondent No.3 College. Respondent No.3 College is a Government College. When the petitioner received the mark -sheet Annexure P -3, she realized that internal assessment mark assigned to her in respect of subject 'English' was error apparent committed by the College and the University. She, therefore, pursued the matter with the College, when it was realized that due to typographical/clerical error, the communication sent by the College to the University indicated the internal assessment marks assigned to the petitioner as only 1 for English subject. The petitioner, therefore, approached the University for taking corrective measures. However, the University declined to entertain the request of the petitioner, which has forced the petitioner to file the present petition. In substance, the petitioner is seeking direction against the University to correct the mark -sheet and record actual marks obtained by the petitioner in internal assessment for English subject, which, according to her, on enquiries, it was noticed that it should be 12 marks. The University, however, is resisting this petition relying on the circular, dated 16th February, 2012, which informed all the Colleges, including respondent No.3 College, that revised internal assessment will not be entertained at any cost by the University, if submitted after declaration of results. No doubt, the University is justified in taking the stand that such attempt of the Colleges entails in unnecessary and avoidable litigation, but that does not mean that the petitioner should suffer for the mistake of the College as well as the University, founded on the incorrect information submitted by the College. Respondent No.3 College, on being noticed, has appeared before the Court and the Principal of the College has filed affidavit stating that due to clerical error, the communication sent by the College to the University wrongly mentioned 1 mark against English subject assigned to the petitioner during internal assessment, instead of 12 marks. 3. Respondent No.3 College, on being noticed, has appeared before the Court and the Principal of the College has filed affidavit stating that due to clerical error, the communication sent by the College to the University wrongly mentioned 1 mark against English subject assigned to the petitioner during internal assessment, instead of 12 marks. 3. TO reassure ourselves about the correctness of this stand, we called upon the College to produce the examination answer -sheet pertaining to the petitioner. That indicates that the petitioner more or less attempted all questions, but secured only 37 marks out of 80 marks, for which she was entitled for 7 marks in the internal assessment. Further, the petitioner was entitled for additional 5 marks for her attendance during the academic year pertaining to English subject. In other words, the petitioner has, in fact, secured aggregate 12 marks in the internal assessment, but the college wrongly informed the University that the petitioner has secured only 1 mark in English subject during the internal assessment. 4. THIS being an obvious mistake and which fact is substantiated from the record maintained by the College, in the interest of justice, we direct the University to issue fresh mark -sheet to the petitioner indicating the internal assessment for English subject as 12 marks, instead of 1 mark. That mark -sheet be issued within 10 days from today, so that the petitioner can pursue further education, if so advised, subject to other eligibility. The respondent -University is also directed to open the envelope containing the result of B.Ed. of the petitioner kept in sealed cover and if found eligible, may be considered for admission to B.Ed. Course. Petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.