Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1133 (HP)

Ashwani Kumar v. Himachal Pradesh University

2014-08-26

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
Judgment Petitioner appeared in the final year examination of B.Sc. (Non Medical) in the year 1991 under Roll Number 77081. He was awarded 293 marks out of 600 marks. Petitioner was issued mark-sheet vide Annexure P-1. The percentage of the petitioner in B.Sc. IIIrd year was 48.9. The petitioner had earlier secured 35 marks in the subject of Mathematics out of 100 marks. He appeared in the subject of mathematics in September, 1991 and was awarded 54 marks out of 100 marks in mathematics. Petitioner was issued mark sheet vide Annexure P-2. Petitioner made a representation vide Annexure P-3 for adding improved marks obtained by him in the subject of Mathematics in the marks sheet. Petitioner has also placed on record copy of communication dated 11.2.2014 whereby a decision has been taken to grant two special opportunities to the candidates who have passed B.A., B.Sc., B.Com and Shastri examination in and after the year 1990, subject to payment of `5,000/- to improve their percentage. 2. Respondent-University has placed on record copy of letter dated 12.3.2014, whereby petitioner was informed that he has to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and was required to appear in the examination according to the new syllabus. Respondent- University has also placed on record copy of decision whereby the candidates were required to appear for examination as per latest syllabus. 3. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, has drawn the attention of the Court to Ordinance 6.23. According to this Ordinance, a candidate who did not fulfill the percentage required for admission to Master’s Degree course could be allowed to improve his score in only one subject/ additional subject of his choice, only once within two years from the passing of a respective examination. According to proviso, this concession was for the purpose of eligibility for admission to course, for which graduation was the minimum qualification for admission. 4. Case of the petitioner would be regulated by Ordinance 6.23, which was prevalent at the time of his appearing in B.Sc. (Non Medical) in the year 1991 and when he again appeared in the subject of Mathematics in September 1991 for improving his marks. The decisions taken vide annexure P-4 dated 11.2.2014 and 7.3.2014, would be applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Petitioner has already been informed by the respondent-University that he has to deposit a sum of Rs. (Non Medical) in the year 1991 and when he again appeared in the subject of Mathematics in September 1991 for improving his marks. The decisions taken vide annexure P-4 dated 11.2.2014 and 7.3.2014, would be applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Petitioner has already been informed by the respondent-University that he has to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with a rider that he has to appear as per the latest syllabus. Case of the petitioner has already been rejected after taking into consideration the Ordinance 6.23 prevalent in the year 1990-1991. 5. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.