Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 275 (JK)

Apoorva Koul v. Vice Chancellor, Jammu University

2017-06-07

TASHI RABSTAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. A. OWP No. 209/2016 1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of Notification No. 17/Annual Examination/Part-II/2015 issued under endorsement No. Eval/NP/2015/6911-15, dated 28.09.2015, by Controller of Examinations, University of Jammu, qua petitioner, whereby her result for Part-II of Three Years BCA Degree (General) Course, Annual Examination, 2015 has been shown as reappear in MF and CF. The facts-in-brief, as gathered from the writ record, are that the petitioner being a student of Three Years BCA Degree (General) Course, appeared in BCA-II annual examination, 2015 under Roll No. 202340022 and was declared passed on 01.08.2015, having secured 292 marks out of 550. Being not satisfied, petitioner applied for re-evaluation for three subjects, i.e., English (papers A & B), MF-A and CF-A, result whereof was declared on 04.10.2015 and the petitioner was declared to have secured 295 marks out of 550 marks. In fact, in re-evaluation, three marks of petitioner got increased in General English Paper-B, whereas earlier she had secured nineteen marks in the said paper. The result of other two subjects, i.e., MF-A and CF-A remained unchanged. Thus, after declaration of result of re-evaluation, the petitioner, in whole, was awarded 295 marks out of 550 marks. 2. However, in the meantime, i.e., before declaring the result of re-evaluation, Controller of Examinations, University of Jammu issued Notification No. 17/Annual Examination/Part-II/2015, dated 28.09.2015, whereby the result of certain candidates including the petitioner was amended, as a result whereof the petitioner was declared re-appear in two subjects, i.e., MF and CF, besides it was also declared that instead of 33 marks in MF-A, it would be read as 23. It is averred that when said notification came to be issued, the petitioner had already been pursuing 3rd Year Course in Government College for Women at Parade, Jammu and all of a sudden she has been declared re-appear in two subjects of 2nd Year Course, when earlier she had been declared passed not only in the actual result, but also in the re-evaluation result, result whereof was declared on 04.10.2015. Further, it is averred that the father of petitioner made a representation to the concerned authorities, thereafter he also sent a reminder, but the respondents did not pay any heed to his representations. It is stated that the petitioner also served a legal notice upon the respondents, but of no result. Further, it is averred that the father of petitioner made a representation to the concerned authorities, thereafter he also sent a reminder, but the respondents did not pay any heed to his representations. It is stated that the petitioner also served a legal notice upon the respondents, but of no result. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. In the synopsis, filed on behalf of respondents, it is stated that on rechecking of result, it was detected that marks of other candidate were wrongly awarded to the petitioner, actually petitioner was re-appear in CF subject, whereas she was declared passed in the second subject MF by adding two marks of statute. However, when the petitioner was declared re-appear in CF subject, the benefit of statute accorded in MF subject was withdrawn automatically. Accordingly, after rectifying the mistake, the result of petitioner was amended on 28.09.2015 vide notification impugned and she was declared re-appear in two subjects, i.e., MF and CF, besides it was also declared that instead of 33 marks in MF-A, it would be read as 23 marks, which the petitioner had actually secured. 4. Objections have also been filed on behalf of respondents averring therein that Statute-61 of University Calendar permits the appropriate authority to amend any result, where it is found that result of the University has been affected by an error, provided the same is not beyond the expiry of six months of declaration of result. Further, it is insisted that the result of re-evaluation loses its significance after the declaration of amended result by the University within the stipulated period of six months from the date of declaration of result. It is also averred that in order to rectify the mistake on its part as a result of which three candidates including the petitioner had been affected by amendment of the result, University authorities approved special chance for these candidates, so that their admission is protected. However, the petitioner verbally refused to avail this opportunity, whereas other two students appeared in the examination again. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the file. 6. Before adverting to facts of present case, it would be advantageous to reproduce Statute-61 of University Calendar hereunder: "61. However, the petitioner verbally refused to avail this opportunity, whereas other two students appeared in the examination again. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the file. 6. Before adverting to facts of present case, it would be advantageous to reproduce Statute-61 of University Calendar hereunder: "61. In any case where it is found that the result of an examination has been affected by an error the Controller of Examinations shall amend such result in such manner as shall be in accordance with the true position and report each such case to the Vice-Chancellor. Provided that no such result shall be amended at the expiration of six months, from the date of declaration." 7. Respondents do not dispute petitioner having been declared passed on 01.08.2015, with 292 marks secured out of 550. Respondents have also not disputed that in re-evaluation three marks of petitioner were increased in General English Paper-B, whereas, the result of other two subjects, i.e., MF-A and CF-A remained unchanged, result whereof was declared on 04.10.2015. 8. The only stand of respondents in amending the result of petitioner on 28.09.2015 and declaring her re-appear in MF and CF is that after declaring her result being passed on 01.08.2015, it was detected that marks of other candidate were wrongly awarded to the petitioner, thus the mistake was rectified by issuance of notification impugned. In order to justify their act, respondents also rely upon Statute-61 of University Calendar, which provides that where it is found that the result of an examination has been affected by an error, the Controller of Examinations shall amend such result in accordance with the true position, provided no such result shall be amended at the expiry of six months from the date of declaration. 9. However, fact of the matter is that once the respondents had found that the result of petitioner had been affected by an error and rectified such mistake vide amended result dated 28.09.2015 declaring the petitioner re-appear in MF and CF in accordance with the true position in terms of Statute-61 (supra), then how in re-evaluation result, declared on 04.10.2015, i.e., seven days after the declaration of amended result, the marks of petitioner got increased from 292 to 295 and the marks of petitioner in MF and CF subjects remained unchanged as per result dated 01.08.2015. Respondents have not given any justification for the same that how after seven days of declaration of amended result, the petitioner was declared to have secured three more marks in English subject, whereas her marks in MF and CF remained unchanged. Once the respondents had already amended the result of petitioner on 28.09.2015, declaring her re-appear in MF and CF, then how come respondents could have again made same mistake while declaring re-evaluation result on 04.10.2015. 10. On one hand respondents are not denying the re-evaluation result, and, on other hand, they are justifying the amended result too whereas Statute-18 of Statutes Governing Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts clearly provides that the result of re-evaluation, whether favourable or unfavourable, shall be binding on the candidate. In the given circumstances, this Court is not being able to understand that what the respondents wanted to convey that the process of re-evaluation was nothing but just a farce, because, in the objections, the respondents have themselves averred that the result of re-evaluation lost its significance after the declaration of amended result by the University. How the respondents could assert that the result of re-evaluation has lost its significance, when they have not questioned the same on the ground that the same is the result of malpractice or fraud -either on the part of petitioner or university authorities. 11. Further, it is admitted position that in re-evaluation, three marks of petitioner in English Subject, Paper-B got increased from 19 to 22. Even, the respondents have admitted this position in paragraph 3(iv) of para-wise reply of objections. In the synopsis too, the respondents have stated that on rechecking of result, it was detected that marks of other candidate were wrongly awarded to petitioner. However, in the amended result after re-checking, although the petitioner has been declared re-appear in MF and CF subjects, besides it was also declared that instead of 33 marks in MF-A, it would be read as 23, yet the amended result too was still affected by an error and not in accordance with the true position in terms of Statute-61 of University Calendar, because thereafter, in the re-evaluation result, the petitioner got three more marks in English paper which were not added in the amended result, despite admitting the same by the respondents. Further, Statute-18 of Statutes Governing Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts clearly provides that the result of re-evaluation, whether favourable or unfavourable, shall be binding on the candidate. In other words, it was also binding on the University authorities. 12. Now the true position would be, the result of petitioner was declared on 01.08.2015. As per respondents, since the examination/result of petitioner was affected by an error and not in accordance with the true position, the same was required to be amended within six months from the date of declaration of result, i.e., with effect from 01.08.2015. Respondents declared the amended result on 28.09.2015, obviously within the stipulated period of six months. However, the amended result too was still affected by an error and not in accordance with the true position in terms of Statute-61 of University Calendar, because three more marks got by the petitioner in English Paper-B in the re-evaluation result were neither added in the amended result nor till date the same has been rectified by the respondents in terms of Statute-61 (supra), although they have themselves admitted in paragraph 3(iv) of para-wise reply of objections that the petitioner had got 03 marks higher in the subject of English. We are in the month of June, 2017, i.e., 22 months have lapsed from the date of declaration of result of petitioner on 01.08.2015. Since the respondents did not rectify the said mistake within the stipulated period of six months from the date of declaration of result of petitioner, Statute-61 of University Calendar, in the given situation, does not apply to the case of petitioner. 13. Further, the respondents have not denied that the original result of petitioner indicated in the marks card was also supported by the result Gazette and black list. 14. Therefore, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and Notification No. 17/Annual Examination/Part-II/2015 issued under endorsement No. Eval/NP/2015/6911-15, dated 28.09.2015, by the Controller of Examinations, is hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, accordingly, stands disposed of. B. OWP No. 1233/2016 In view of quashing of Notification No. 17/Annual Examination/Part-II/2015 issued under endorsement No. Eval/NP/2015/6911-15, dated 28.09.2015, the present writ petition does not survive and the same is, accordingly, disposed of.