ORDER : Ajay Rastogi, J. The petitioner successfully completed his graduation in Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) in the year 2012 as a regular student from Government Bangur College, Pali which at the relevant point of time was affiliated with Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer. The respondent University published the provisional merit list of B.Sc. Examination-2012 wherein petitioner's name finds place at serial no.04 and originally when the result was declared his total marks as shown in the provisional merit list were 1706 out of 2025 and the student who topped in the merit list secured 1741 out of 2025. However, the petitioner being dissatisfied with the result, applied for revaluation of his marks and after result of revaluation the total marks secured by him were increased to 1764 out of 2025 and indisputably the petitioner thereafter topped in the merit list. It is not out of place to mention here that the marks obtained after revaluation by the petitioner in B.Sc. Examination III year indisputably are higher than the current topper but still he was not included as a merit holder for gold medal, which according to the respondent University is to be awarded to the student who secured highest marks in the main examination & included in the provisional merit list & the marks which the student secured after revaluation no credence be attached to it. At this stage the petitioner approached the authorities by submitting representation but that came to be rejected on the premise that in view of R.11 of Ord.157-A the increase in marks obtained by a candidate as a result of revaluation shall not be taken into account for inclusion of the candidates standing in order of merit read with para-7 of the notification issued by the respondent University dt.11.05.2011 pursuant to approval of resolution no.14 of the Board of Management held on 27.11.2009 also mandates that the marks secured on account of revaluation shall not be counted for merit. Taking note thereof, the petitioner has preferred Instant writ petition assailing the validity of para-11 of Ord.157-A & para 7 of the Notification (supra). After notices came to be served, response has been filed by the respondent University & pursuant to order of the Court dt.31.03.2015 the student (Ms. Poonam Kumari) who was shown to be meritorious in the provisional list is impleaded as respondent-3 and response has been filed on her behalf. After notices came to be served, response has been filed by the respondent University & pursuant to order of the Court dt.31.03.2015 the student (Ms. Poonam Kumari) who was shown to be meritorious in the provisional list is impleaded as respondent-3 and response has been filed on her behalf. The facts of which reference has been made (supra) are not disputed by either of the respondent & their only objection is that the petitioner if secured higher marks after revaluation in graduation he is not entitled for inclusion of his name in the provisional merit list in view of R.11 of Ord.157-A read with para-7 of their notification dt.11.05.2011 and increase of marks as a result of revaluation as per University Ordinance & notification as well, of which reference has been made, shall not be taken into account for preparing merit list of the candidates and is not eligible to be considered for inclusion in the merit list and for award of gold medal and as regards respondent no.3 is concerned the facts have not been disputed & seeking protection of R.11 of Ord.157-A & notification (supra). The case of the petitioner is that he is having throughout a good academic record & meritorious in B.Sc.-III Examination 2012 but when his result was declared he was shocked & since his marks disclosed in the result were not acceptable as such applied for revaluation as provided under the scheme of Rules and indisputably on revaluation being carried his marks increased from 1706 to 1764 out of 2025 & topped the list & the candidate included in the provisional merit list issued by the respondent university secured only 1741 marks which is much lesser than the marks secured by the petitioner after revaluation but still was not included by the respondent University in the merit list because of the impediment of R.11 of Ord.157-A read with para-7 of their notification dt.11.05.2011. It is pleaded by the petitioner that what has been provided in R.11 of Ord.157-A & para-7 of the notification dt.11.05.2011 is arbitrary & defeats the very object of revaluation & doesn't stand on reasonableness as required by Art.14 of the Constitution and further pleaded that the result of a candidate becomes final only after revaluation and impediment created (supra) needs to be declared ultra vires and the petitioner was never at fault, on the contrary it was the respondent University who is at fault that his answer script has not been properly evaluated, which deprived him of his actual marks which he could secure after revaluation for his inclusion in the list of merit holders & for the award of gold medal but creating impediment depriving him from his just & fair right of consideration is arbitrary & not in conformity with Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Per contra counsel for respondents have come out with a defence that in view of R.11 of Ord.157-A & para-7 of notification dt.11.05.2011 no error has been committed by the respondent University and the petitioner is not entitled to take cognizance of the marks which he has now secured on revaluation for the purpose of his inclusion in the merit list and for award of gold medal and what has been referred to by the respondents while declining to consider the petitioner in merit list certainly has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material on record. It will be appropriate to quote R.11 of Ord.157-A & so also para-7 of the notification dt.11.05.2011 being relevant for the present purpose ad infra :- “R.11 (Ord.157-A):- The increase in marks obtained by a candidate as a result of revaluation shall not be taken into account for preparing the merit of candidates standing in order of merit at any examination.” “Para-7 (notification-11.05.2011) : The marks secured on account of revaluation shall not be counted for merit, only original marks shall be counted.” At the outset we may notice that the scope of Ordinance 157A-(II) came to be examined by the Single Bench of this Court in Ram Karan Vs. the University of Raj., Jaipur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1268/1987 decided on 09.09.1996) wherein under similar circumstances and under the same provision of debarring a person to be put on higher position after revaluation of marks, the writ petitioner in that case was given the benefit & declared the provision in question to be invalid and struck down and observed as under :- “(II) The increase in marks obtained by a candidate as a result of revaluation shall not be taken into account for preparing the merit list of first 10 candidates standing in order of merit at an examination.” It was held by the learned Single Judge while interpreting R 11 as under :- “It was submitted that the result would become final only after the revaluation is over otherwise applying for revaluation would be meaningless. There is lot of substance in this submission. Ordinance 157A(II) is absolutely unreasonable and liable to be struck down. The candidate would not be at fault if there is mistake committed by the examiner in giving or totalling the marks. If this Clause (II) of the Ordinance 157A(II) is allowed to and then it will frustrate the very purpose of revaluation. Clause II is wholly unreasonable and, therefore, liable to be struck down and accordingly, it is declared to be invalid and struck down.” “Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Respondent is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the merit list for by including the marks obtained by him in the revaluation. Now the question is what will happen to the gold medal awarded to the first candidate who secured highest marks before revaluation. This petition is of 1987. Therefore, it would not be proper at this stage to direct the respondent to withdraw the gold medal from the first candidate and award of the petitioner. However, the respondent can certainly be directed to award gold medal to the petitioner in addition to the gold medal awarded to the first candidate. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to present gold medal to the petitioner for securing the highest marks in M.Sc. However, the respondent can certainly be directed to award gold medal to the petitioner in addition to the gold medal awarded to the first candidate. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to present gold medal to the petitioner for securing the highest marks in M.Sc. Final Examination is Botany held in March 1986.” Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rajendrakumar Chandrakant Nadkarni V. University of Bombay, 1950-91 (3) A.I.F.C. 650 wherein the Ordinance/Regulations of the University of Bombay a similar clause was incorporated, which is reproduced as under :- “The revised marks obtained by a candidate after revaluation as accepted by the University shall be above. Mr. Balram Gupta appearing for the University submitted that re-evaluation is a concession. The benefits of this concession have a very limited scope. In order to be eligible for a Gold Medal, a candidate has to be first in the merit fist in the first attempt. Any person who reaches the first position in second attempt would not be eligible. Thus, a candidate whose marks are increased by re-evaluation would not be eligible for the award of a Gold Medal under Clause 4.2. This argument has to be stated only to be rejected. Revaluation is an integral part of the examination. The marks obtained on revaluation cannot be said to be the marks obtained in the 2nd attempt. Marks obtained on revaluation of any attempt would remain the marks of that attempt only. He further submitted that the procedure of re-evaluation is fraught with uncertainties. In order for two candidates to be put at par or bracketed, their papers would have to be examined by the same examiner. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions have not considered the provisions with regard to re-evaluation in a comprehensive manner. He further submitted that the constitutionality of a provisions/rules/regulations has to be adjudged only by a three-fold test, namely (1) whether the provisions of such regulations fall within the scope and ambit of the power conferred by the statute on the delegate; (2) whether the rules/regulations framed by the delegate are to any extent inconsistent with the provisions of the parent enactment and lastly (3) whether they infringe any of the fundamental rights or other restrictions or limitations imposed by the Constitution. In support of this submission, he has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and High Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth etc., AIR 1984 SC 1543 . He has submitted that since Clause 4.2 treats all candidates seeking revaluation in a similar manner, equality is inherent in the rule. Therefore, there is no infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The rationale of the rule, according to the learned Sr. counsel, is to give finality to the result of the candidates. Re-evaluation may take a long time. This would create uncertainty and create difficulties in the grant of the Gold Medal. The regulation has been framed with a view to providing certainty and finality to the result of the candidates.” Apart from it the identical provision has been examined by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ms. Deepa Vs Maharishi Dayanand University, (2003) 133 PLR 555 in para-9 of the judgment observed as under :- “A candidate would normally seek revaluation of the result with the earnest hope of improving the result. The desire for revaluation is usually based on an apprehension that perhaps some mistakes has been committed by the examiner in evaluating the answer book. In the rules/regulations for reevaluation, the candidate is given a chance to have the error detected and corrected. There is a legitimate expectation of an increase in marks. We are of the considered opinion that providing such an opportunity to the candidates would be a source of solace to students who are devoted to studies and are meritorious. The rationale underlying the rule of revaluation seems to be that no candidate should suffer for the mistake of the examiner. In other words, every candidate should get the fruits of his/her labour in pursuing the studies with enthusiasm and vigour. The rule is framed to make sure that no candidate is deprived of the result he/she deserves. The principle of certainty as advocated by Mr. Balram Gupta would put a premium on the mistake committed by the examiner in the first instance. The rule is framed to make sure that no candidate is deprived of the result he/she deserves. The principle of certainty as advocated by Mr. Balram Gupta would put a premium on the mistake committed by the examiner in the first instance. If taken into account for the purpose of amendment of his results in accordance with the rules of the University in the behalf, but these marks shall not be taken into account for the purpose of award of scholarships, prizes, medals and/or the order of merit.” The Bombay High Court in Rajendrakumar Chandrakant Nadkarni V. University of Bombay & Anr., AIR 1991 Bom 126 observed as under :- "If revaluation is permitted and if ranking in so far as class is concerned is awarded to candidates who get the benefit of revaluation, there is no reason to restrict the result to the mere declaration of a class. The full benefit to the vindicated candidate has to be awarded and his marks have to be taken into account for the purpose of scholarship, prizes, medals and/or the order of merit. Agreeing with the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, I make the rule absolute by quashing Ex. F and confirming the correctness of Ex.D i.e., the special certificate awarded on 17.8.1983. Rule in these terms is made absolute with parties being left to bear their own costs." The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Manoj Kumar Jindal Vs. Ravishankar University, Raipur, AIR 1989 MP 1 observed in para-13 as under :- “Apropos the contention that on basis of the Merit-List the candidates meanwhile take admissions on its basis or get jobs and if the Merit-List is subsequently changed "after five or six months", it may create anomalous position and the candidates who are declared in the Merit-List may suffer irreparable injury. This contention is counter to the provision of the revaluation which, as stated earlier, has its own significance and meaning. There is no reason why after revaluation, if the petitioner is found to have obtained "first position", he should be continued to be ranked in "third position". This would be rank injustice to a student devoted to studies with meritorious performance. The object behind revaluation is that every man should get his due which he deserves. That is the rule of law and also equity. This would be rank injustice to a student devoted to studies with meritorious performance. The object behind revaluation is that every man should get his due which he deserves. That is the rule of law and also equity. This appears to be a case where the position in the Merit-List entails consequential benefits also. Generally the toppers have further benefits not only of Division and Merit, but often Medals and Prizes. If that be so, it is all the worst that the petitioner is deprived of his legal right to such benefits. There is no reason why the petitioner should suffer for the fault of the University. There is no question of any legal injury to the other two respondents just because under the rules relating to revaluation, they would be relegated from their positions Nos. 1 and 2, to positions Nos. 2 and 3. If the relegated No. 3 had any grievance, he could have availed of the provisions regarding revaluation within 30 days. It is not correct to say that amendment in the impugned Merit List would not be in the interest of public at large.” A candidate would normally seek revaluation which is a facility provided under the scheme of Rules obviously under the bonafide belief with the earnest hope of improving result and this by & large is based on apprehension that perhaps some mistake has been committed by the examiner in evaluating the answer book and the Rules/Regulations for revaluation have been provided to get the error detected & corrected and there is always a legitimate expectation of increase in marks. The rationale underlying the scheme of revaluation seems to be that no candidate should suffer for the mistake of the examiner and in other words, every candidate should get the fruits of his/her labour in pursuing the studies with enthusiasm and vigour and the rule is framed to make sure that no candidate be deprived of the result which he/she deserves and this what has been considered while examining the scope of Ord.157-A by the Single Bench of this Court & other High Courts & the consistent view that the marks obtained by a candidate after revaluation is to be taken into account for the purpose of amending his result and if these marks are not taken into account for the purpose of scholarships, prizes, medals and the order of merit, the very purpose of the scheme with which the merit of revaluation has been provided is being frustrated and at the same time the marks secured by the candidate in revaluation he is entitled to get the full benefit being vindicated candidate and his marks have to be taken into account for all practical purposes including scholarships, medals and the order of merit. Para-7 of the notification is nothing but corresponding to Ord.157A(II) & once this Court has expressed its view of Ord.157A(II) being arbitrary & in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, Para-7 of the notification dt.11.05.2011 also does not hold good and deserves to be struck down and there is no need to further examine and it is expected from the authorities to take note of the law laid down by this Court while responsing to the request being made by the candidates. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and R.11 of Ord.157-A & so also R.7 of the notification dt.11.05.2011, of which reference has been made (supra), are unreasonable & ultra vires to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India & are accordingly struck down and the communication dt.10.03.2015 (Annx.R/2) is quashed & set aside and the respondent-University is directed to include name of the petitioner in the merit list as topper & award Gold Medal to him, in addition to the Gold Medal already awarded to the candidate (respondent-3) who had been put earlier at first position in the examination in question. No order as to costs.