Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1278 (ORI)

Padmabati Sethi v. Utkal University

2017-11-08

S.N.PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to declare the petitioner to have passed in the three years Degree Course (+3 Arts) by awarding pass mark in Home Science(practical) of Second University Examination,2007 and issue revised mark sheet and certificate within a stipulated date. 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she took admission in the d3-years Degree Course(+3 Arts) of Directorate of Distance and Continuing Education, Utkal University and enrolled vide Enrolment No.05/5301/141 and University Registration No.DE-53-/141/05. She appeared in First University Examination, 2006 with English and M.I.L.(Oriya) as compulsory subject, Home Science(theory and practical) as pass subject and LIH as Elect.-A subject and awarded pass marks. Similarly she appeared 2nd University Examination, 2007 with the same subjects, such as English and M.I.L.(Oriya) as compulsory subject, Home Science (theory and practical) as pass subject, LIH as ELEA subject but she was not supplied with the marks of the said examination for which she had represented to the Director of Distant & Continuing Education, Utkal University on 10.1.2008, but however to no effect. The petitioner had appeared 3rd University Examination,2009 with ISC, ESRPS as compulsory subject and EDN as Ele-B subject but she was awarded fail mark in E.S. and as such she was allowed to appear compulsory subject(E.S.) as back paper in Third University Examination,2010 and got pass marks. It is the case of the petitioner that the opposite parties supplied mark sheet to her after Third University Examination, 2009 from which the petitioner for the first time found that she has been awarded “0” marks in Home Science(practical) of 2nd University Examination,2007 even though she had appeared in the said examination and approaching to the opposite parties to supply her marks of 2nd University Examiantion,2007. 3. The University has filed counter affidavit wherein, inter alia, it has been stated that zero marks can be awarded to a student even in practical examination normally on the following grounds: (a) for non-submission of practical record. (b) copying of the practical record. (c) wrong/erroneous writing in the practical record. (d) Inability to conduct the assigned practical. (e) Non-answering or wrongly answering to the written and viva voce test conducted at the practical examination etc. usually lead to award of zero. (b) copying of the practical record. (c) wrong/erroneous writing in the practical record. (d) Inability to conduct the assigned practical. (e) Non-answering or wrongly answering to the written and viva voce test conducted at the practical examination etc. usually lead to award of zero. Answer scripts and records are not longer available in the University office because, such records are preserved upto 9 months. The petitioner had appeared in the Home Science (Practical) Examination in the year 2007, in the meantime, 10 years have passed and in absence of any record, it cannot be said that specifically as to under what circumstances zero was awarded to the petitioner. It has been pleaded that candidates are allowed to apply for re-checking of their marks in the answer scripts on payment of fees within 42 days of publication of results but in the instant case, the petitioner did not apply for the rechecking. Further ground has been taken that the examinees are also allowed to obtain a copy of the examination script on payment of requisite fees within 45 days of publication of result but the petitioner did not apply for obtaining a copy of the answer script. The petitioner had appeared at the back examination in 2008 and had received the comprehensive mark sheet, she reappeared at the Final Degree Examination in 2009 but did not fill up the form for Home Science (Practical). She again appeared at the Final Degree Examination in 2010 but did not fill up the form for Home Science Practical nor did she appear. The petitioner was not even an average student, she had failed in 1st year, 2nd year and even in Final Degree Examination in various papers. It has been stated therein that there were internal and external examiner and as such there is no reason to doubt their competence, honesty and integrity. In the light of these stand, submission has been made that the petitioner has failed to make out a case, hence it has been prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The fact which is not dispute in this writ petition is that the petitioner was a student of three years Degree Course(+Arts) of Directorate of Distance and Continuing Education, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar. She appeared First University Examination, 2006 and secured pass mark. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The fact which is not dispute in this writ petition is that the petitioner was a student of three years Degree Course(+Arts) of Directorate of Distance and Continuing Education, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar. She appeared First University Examination, 2006 and secured pass mark. In the 2nd University Examination,2007 she appeared in English and M.I.L.(O) as compulsory subject, Home Science (both theory and practical) pass subject but in Home Science Practical Examination she has been awarded ‘0’ mark and as such he has been declared to have failed in the Three year Degree Course(+3 Arts) Examination, hence the instant writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been shown to have failed in the 2nd University Examiantion, 2007, result of which was published on 25.6.2008. The petitioner, in pursuance to the provision of the University Act, filled up forms in the failed subjects. The petitioner, who has been declared fail, had appeared University Examination, 2008 and had received comparative mark sheets. She had also re-appeared in the Final Degree Examination, 2009 but did not fill up forms in Home Science(Practical). She also appeared in the Final Degree Examination in the year 2010 but did not fill up forms in Home Science Practical nor did she appear. It is evident from the pleadings made in the counter affidavit that she had failed in 1st year, 2nd year and even in Final Degree Examination in various papers in which she had reappeared in the said subjects but not taken steps to appear in Practical Home Science Examination. The petitioner is taking plea of not doing so since she could not be able to know about the practical marks and immediately after knowing the same, she has made representation and as such prayer has been made to direct the University to bring answer sheets. Learned counsel appearing for the University has submitted that the answer sheets cannot be brought after completion of period of 9 months from the date of publication of the result and since the result has been published way back on 25.6.2008, substantive period has gone and as such, the entire answer sheets, as per the provision, has been scrapped. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the University has submitted that the answer sheets cannot be brought after completion of period of 9 months from the date of publication of the result and since the result has been published way back on 25.6.2008, substantive period has gone and as such, the entire answer sheets, as per the provision, has been scrapped. 7. This Court, after appreciating the rival submission of the parties, is of the considered view that the petitioner being a student of 3rd year Degree course must know marks of the examination of each year. It is for the reason that 3rd year Degree Course contains examination for three years i.e. 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year. In the 3rd year examination marks of 1st year and 2nd year marks are to be added and by taking together marks of all the examinations, final result is being published. Specific averments made in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner has been declared passed in the 1st year examination conducted in the year 2006, however, in one of the subjects, she has been declared to have failed in which she appeared as back examination held in the year 2008. Likewise, she has been failed in the 2nd year Practical Examination of Home Science but did not fill up forms in the said subject and she had appeared in the failed subject in the examination in the year 2008. 8. So far as non-communication of the result is concerned, this argument is not acceptable by this Court for the reason that mark sheet is to be provided to the concerned candidate through the Principal of the institution and if the mark sheet is not being provided by the principal, it is for the candidate to ask for the mark sheet in order to know about his/her performance in the examination and as such it is not expected from a candidate that he did not know about his/her performance in the examination. The plea taken by the petitioner to ask the University to produce answer sheets, that is not also required to be passed for the reason that the University law provides for scrapping of answer sheets after 9 months from the date of publication of the result and in the instant case, result has been published on 25.6.2008 and the writ petition has been filed in November, 2010 and as such considerable period has already lapsed and passing of such order will give no result. 9. The petitioner, at this juncture, submits that she may be allowed to participate in the Home Science Practical Examination, reverting to the said argument, learned counsel for the opposite party-State has submitted that Regulation of the Utkal University does not provide to appear in the examination after five years of first registration as per the Utkal University Regulation for B.A./B.Sc./B.Com Examination, 2002-2003, the relevant portion is being quoted herein below: “provided further that in no case a candidate shall be allowed to appear any examination after 5 years of first registration to First University Examination.” Admittedly the 1st University Examination was conducted in the year 2006 and as such from the year 2006, 5 years has already been completed in the year 2011. It would not be proper for this Court by passing an order sitting under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India contrary to the statutory provision and the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any provision of law to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination even after completion of five years. In that view of the matter, the plea of the petitioner is not acceptable and the same is rejected. 10. Taking into consideration the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to extend the relief sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.