Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1447 (HP)

Rupali Gupta v. State of H. P.

2015-10-09

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The only question involved in this writ petition is as to whether a candidate as per Ordinance 6.61(b) is entitled to grace marks upto 1% of the total aggregate only in a complete course or for even any part of the course i.e. semester etc. 2. The petitioner in 2008 took admission directly in 2nd semester M.Com. (distance learning) course in the respondent-University in which she failed. After re-appearing in the 2nd semester examination in November, 2011 the petitioner found that she had got 52 marks out of 100 marks, thereby making an aggregate of 198 marks out of 400 marks in all subjects of 2nd semester which was less than 50%. Accordingly, the petitioner requested the respondent-University to grant her two grace marks so that her aggregate in 2nd semester could become 50%. 3. The respondent-University on 23.5.2012 acceded to the request of the petitioner and issued consolidated mark-sheet of all semesters to the petitioner wherein one grace marks had been duly awarded. 4. However, after more than one and half year from the declaration of the result, the petitioner was issued letter No. 6-2/HPU/M.Com.(Exam-II)-14 dated 20.1.2014 by the respondent-University asking her to return the marks-sheet for correction on the ground that the grace marks so awarded had inadvertently been added. She was further informed that necessary corrections had already been made in the office record and her score now stands at 879 marks out of 1600 marks. 5. The petitioner vide her letter dated 8.2.2014 informed the University that she had already cleared the UGC-NET examination and taken admission in Ph.D course on the basis of the result declared by it and, therefore, any correction in the marks-sheet at any stage would seriously prejudice not only her entire career but entire life. This was followed by several reminders, but to no avail. Hence, this petition. 6. The respondents in their reply have not controverted the factual position and have sought to justify their action by falling back on the provisions of Ordinance 6.61(b) to contend that grace marks cannot be awarded to a person for making 55% marks in the aggregate. 7. This was followed by several reminders, but to no avail. Hence, this petition. 6. The respondents in their reply have not controverted the factual position and have sought to justify their action by falling back on the provisions of Ordinance 6.61(b) to contend that grace marks cannot be awarded to a person for making 55% marks in the aggregate. 7. The stand of the respondents when perused by this Court at the time of hearing on 4.9.2015 appeared to be rather strange thereby constraining the Court to direct respondent No.2 to file supplementary affidavit explaining therein as to on what basis according to it was the petitioner in fact claiming two grace marks so that her percentage could be 55% because a perusal of her application only revealed that she had sought two grace marks in the semester so that she could get a 2nd division in M.Com. 2nd semester. 8. In compliance to the aforesaid directions, the University has filed a supplementary affidavit and it is relevant to quote paras 2 and 3 thereof, which read as under: “2. That the case of the University in the reply is to the effect that the petitioner was issued consolidated marks card showing therein 1 grace mark as evident from perusal of Annexure ‘P-4’, whereas the petitioner could have been awarded grace mark upto 1% of the total aggregate marks, if she had failed to obtain either the second or the first division that too, after clearing all the semesters. In the present case, the petitioner has never written any letter as appended with the petition as Annexure P-3 and that fact has specifically been denied while filing reply to para-5 of the petition, where the reference of Annexure P-3 has been mentioned. 3. That the replying-University has nowhere mentioned in the reply that the petitioner was in fact claiming 2 grace marks so that her percentage could be 55%. It is relevant to mention here that the grace marks are awarded to the extent of one percent of the total aggregate only in case, the candidate fails in a particular semester/course or to obtain second or first division that too, while preparing the consolidated marks card. The marks are not awarded in each course or semester to obtain second or first division. The marks are not awarded in each course or semester to obtain second or first division. Hence, the petitioner was wrongly issued the consolidated marks card vide Annexure P-4 and after coming to its notice that the grace marks cannot be awarded for making 55% marks in the degree, the petitioner was asked to return the consolidated marks card, so that the new consolidated marks card is given to her.” I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. Ordinance 6.61(b) reads thus: “Grace marks upto 1% of the total aggregate marks may be awarded to a candidate, who has passed an examination but has failed to obtain either the second or the first division, if by the addition of such grace marks he is enabled to be placed in the second or the first division, as the case may be; Provided that grace marks shall not be allowed to a candidate to improve his division, if he has already been allowed grace marks to pass the examination or any part thereof, or to a candidate who is permitted to re-appear in an examination to improve his division or score in a course under paragraph 6.23.” 10. A plain reading of the ordinance suggests that grace marks upto 1% of the total aggregate marks may be awarded to a candidate, who has passed an examination but has failed to obtain either the second or the first division, if by the addition of such grace marks he is enabled to be placed in the second or the first division, as the case may be. But in no event would the grace marks be allowed to a candidate to improve his division, if he has already been allowed grace marks to pass the examination or any part thereof or to a candidate who is permitted to re-appear in an examination to improve his division or score in a course under paragraph 6.23. 11. The proviso clearly indicates that grace marks can also be awarded not only to pass the examination but even a part thereof. 11. The proviso clearly indicates that grace marks can also be awarded not only to pass the examination but even a part thereof. Meaning thereby, that in case an entire course is considered to be an examination, then nothing prevents the candidate from being allowed grace marks for “any part thereof” i.e. even one semester subject of course to the other conditions as contemplated and provided for in the aforesaid ordinance. 12. That apart, a perusal of para 3 of the supplementary affidavit (supra) would clearly indicate that even the respondents themselves do not dispute that the grace marks to the extent of 1% of the total aggregate can be awarded in case the candidate fails to obtain second division. The ordinance does not even remotely indicate much less make mention that these marks shall not be awarded in each course or semester and shall be awarded only at the time of preparation of the consolidated mark-sheet as is being portrayed by the respondents. These words have been imported by the respondents only in order to justify their illegal action while no such words find mention in the Ordinance 6.61 (b). 13. It is more than settled that one cannot read anything in a statutory provision or a stipulated condition which is plain and unambiguous and, therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to read something into the aforesaid Ordinance, which is otherwise not provided for. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no fault with the action of respondent No.2 whereby it earlier awarded grace marks to the petitioner, but the withdrawal thereof coupled with the justification as now sought to be furnished for the same, cannot for the aforestated reasons, be countenanced. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the letter issued by respondent No.2 –University on 20.1.2014 is quashed and set-aside. The respondent-University is directed to issue a declaration to the petitioner to the effect that the consolidated mark-sheet No. 6779 issued on 23.5.2012 as valid and is further directed to issue letter to the UGC so as to confirm the marks and eligibility of the petitioner as stated in the above mark-sheet is true and correct. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any. The parties are left to bear their costs.