Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 327 (ALL)

Pooja Rani v. State of U. P.

2014-01-28

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.: - This special appeal arises from a judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 11 November 2013. 2. The appellant appeared at the B.Sc. Part-III Examination in 2006 and was issued a mark sheet by the University. The mark sheet which was issued to the appellant does not contain a reference to the marks obtained by the appellant in her optional subject of Information Technology. The appellant filed a writ petition on or about 21 August 2012 nearly seven years thereafter, seeking a mandamus to provide the B.Sc. degree. The University filed a counter before the learned Single Judge stating that in order to consider the grievance of the appellant, the matter was referred to the Examinations Committee. The said Committee at its meeting on 6 September 2012 opined that since there was no provision in the Ordinances of the University to award average marks, as sought by the appellant, an Inquiry Committee may be constituted. The Inquiry Committee furnished an opportunity to the appellant of being heard and in its recommendation dated 20 October 2012 allowed the appellant one further opportunity to appear in the subject of Information Technology in the annual examination of 2013. This recommendation was accepted by the Examinations Committee on 9 January 2013 and by the Executive Council on 12 January 2013. 3. The contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that in certain other cases where the records had been weeded out, the Committee appointed by the University had agreed to award marks for the optional subject on the basis of the average marks obtained in the other subjects and hence it was submitted that the same treatment should be afforded to the appellant. 4. The learned Single Judge has found fault with the appellant for having waited for nearly 6 or 7 years since the issuance of the mark sheet in 2006 before raising the grievance for the first time in 2012. Moreover, it was held that in the absence of any statutory provision for award of average marks, no parity could be extended and the University has taken a fair decision to grant liberty to the appellant to once again appear in the optional subject. 5. Moreover, it was held that in the absence of any statutory provision for award of average marks, no parity could be extended and the University has taken a fair decision to grant liberty to the appellant to once again appear in the optional subject. 5. The most salient aspect of the case is that though the mark sheet was issued to the appellant in 2006, it was only in 2012 that she filed the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge seeking conferment of the B.Sc. degree. If a candidate is aggrieved by the failure to declare the result of a particular subject, such a grievance must be made at the earliest possible opportunity. Otherwise this would give rise to a situation where a candidate would wait for the records of the University to be weeded out so that a claim for award of marks in that subject can be made on the basis of the average marks obtained in the other subjects of the examination. 6. Undoubtedly, if a mistake is committed by the University, the students should not be made to suffer and rectificatory measures have to be taken. But equally, such a grievance of the students must be brought to the attention of the University at the earliest possible point of time and in a case, as the present, where the student waited for nearly 6 or 7 years, it will not be possible to accede to the prayer that since the records are now not available, marks should be awarded on the basis of the average marks obtained in the remaining subjects. The University constituted an Inquiry Committee whose recommendation was accepted by the Examinations Committee and the Executive Council. One further opportunity has been granted to the appellant to appear in the optional subject in the annual examination of 2013. The appellant is, therefore, not left without a remedy to complete her studies for the B.Sc. degree. In a matter such as the present, the Court should be slow in interfering with the view of an expert academic body. The view which was taken by the learned Single Judge, therefore, commends itself for acceptance and does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference in a special appeal. degree. In a matter such as the present, the Court should be slow in interfering with the view of an expert academic body. The view which was taken by the learned Single Judge, therefore, commends itself for acceptance and does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference in a special appeal. The appellant would of course be at liberty to take the benefit of the option which has been given by the University to once again appear in the optional subject in the ensuing annual examination. 7. Subject to the aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.