Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 656 (HP)

Tanuja Bhatia v. Himachal Pradesh University

2015-06-03

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since all the writ petitions emanate out of a common impugned order comprised in Annexure P-4, hence, they are liable to be disposed of by a common order. All petitioners are pursuing their studies in the St.Bedes College, Shimla. They are prosecuting studies in BBA final semester. The teachers supervising the studies of the petitioners carried out their internal assessment. In the initial internal assessment carried out by the supervising teachers qua the progress in studies of the petitioners, the petitioners obtained eight marks whereas they were enjoined to obtain a minimum 10 marks so as to render them qualified for obtaining admission to the higher class. The supervising teachers of the petitioners in the respondent No.3 college having not awarded them the minimum marks to render them qualified or eligible to obtain admission in the higher class, constrained the petitioners to move the respondent No.3 for enhancing the marks previously meted to them qua their internal assessment carried out by the teachers supervising the studies of the petitioners in the semester concerned. The motion or appeal made by the petitioners to the authority concerned for the purpose aforesaid aroused approbation of the authority concerned sequelling preparation of Annexure R-3/1. The respondent No.3 on revising the internal assessment of the petitioners forwarded a communication comprised in Annexure R-3/1 to respondent No.1 for permission being accorded to beget change in the internal assessment of the petitioners in consonance with the manifestation in annexure R-3/1. However, the respondent No.1 responded by relying upon Annexure P-5/A expressing therein its inability to accede to the request of respondent No.3 comprised in Annexure R- 3/1. The constraint, which was projected by respondent No.1 to not accept the request of the respondent No.3 comprised in Annexure R-3/1, led the petitioners to institute CWP No. 5853, 5865, 5868 of 2014. This Court while disposing of the above said writ petitions rendered a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the representations made by the petitioners herein to them for not accepting the request made to it by respondent No.3 comprised in Annexure R-3/1. The reasons which beset the respondent No.1 to reject the representations of the petitioners preferred before it by the petitioners, is entrenched in the fact of the revision of their internal assessment being impermissible. The reasons which beset the respondent No.1 to reject the representations of the petitioners preferred before it by the petitioners, is entrenched in the fact of the revision of their internal assessment being impermissible. The learned counsel for the petitioners has impeached the decision arrived at by respondent No.1 on the representations made by the petitioners on the short score of the relevant provisions/rules of the University, which have been elucidated in paragraph 3 of the reply of respondent No.1 and which stands extracted hereinafter:- “The evaluation of BBA students shall consist of external as well as internal evaluation. The external evaluation will be from 75 marks and internal evaluation shall be from 25 marks. Internal evaluation shall be based on class test, assessment, class participation and attendance of the student. It is recommended that the system of internal assessment can be introduced for the batch of BBA to be admitted in 1996. The candidate has to pass in both internal assessment as well as the written examinations.” Omitting to divulge a specific bar against the revision of internal assessment, as such, the decision of respondent No.1 constituted in Annexure A-2 is contended to be untenable. However, the said argument has no sinew or force in the face of an obvious lack of or omission of an explicit enunciation in the hereinabove extracted relevant provisions of the University statute qua bestowment of an inherent vested right in the petitioners to seek review/revision of internal assessment as previously carried out by respondent No.3. Even the submission of the learned counsel that with their being a reticence in the hereinabove extracted university ordinance qua availability of right of revision of internal assessment as initially carried out by respondent No.3, as such, an implied right is vested in the petitioners to seek revision of their internal assessment as previously carried out, is rudderless and without force, in the face of a right in the petitioners to seek reassessment or revision of internal assessment as previously carried out being necessarily enjoined to be expressly or explicitly enunciated in the relevant statute for hence its being invokable at the instance of the petitioners. However, lack of an explicit vestment, in the relevant provisions of the apt statute, of an inherent right in the petitioners to claim review or revision of internal assessment, as previously carried out, pronounces upon the fact that such a right was not thought fit nor contemplated to be vested in the petitioners. As such, the statute being silent qua availability of such a right to the petitioners obviously communicates the fact that no such right as claimed by the petitioners was intended to be foisted upon the petitioners. As a corollary, for reiteration, reticence in the rule qua the existence or availability of a right as claimed by the petitioners cannot facilitate the contention as addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners nor can tantamount to availability of an implied right in the petitioners to claim revision or review of internal assessment. Moreover, given the fact that the right to obtain revaluation of marks secured by a candidate in examinations finds explicit expression in the apt provisions of the relevant statute, concomitantly then review or revision of internal assessment too ought, to have found explicit expression in the apt statute. Lack of explicit expression in the relevant rules/statute of a right of revision/reassessment of internal assessment being available to the petitioners only garners an apt inference that no right of revision of marks previously accorded to a candidate in internal assessment was permissible. Consequently, the decision arrived at by the respondent No.1 in Annexure P-4 is vindicable. Besides the decision of respondent No.1 in refusing to accede to the request of respondent No.3 in its communication comprised in Annexure R-3/1, is, tenable Accordingly, all the petitions are dismissed. However, it is open to respondent No.3 to give internal assessment to the petitioners subsequent to their hitherto assessment carried out by the teachers supervising the studies of the petitioners and thereafter their result may be declared by respondent No.1. No costs.