High Court · 2024
Facts
wp7619.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 7619 OF 2024 Swapnil s/o Shivaji DeshmukhAge 29 years, Occ. Private jobR/o. Gat No.156, Plot No.07, ‘B’ WingSiddhant Vishwa Housing Society,Alok Nagar, Satara Parisar, Beed BypassChhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Taluka and Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar...Petitioner Versus 1.Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar MarathwadaUniversity, Aurangabad 431 004Taluka and district Aurangabad Through its Registrar 2.The Director,Board of Examination and Evaluation,Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar MarathwadaUniversity, Aurangabad 431 004 Taluka and district Aurangabad 3.The Section Officer,(Engineering Unit) Examination section,Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar MarathwadaUniversity, Aurangabad 431 004 Taluka and district Aurangabad 4.The Section Officer,M.K.C.L. DepartmentDr. Babasaheb Ambedkar MarathwadaUniversity, Aurangabad 431 004 Taluka and district Aurangabad 5.The Principal,Hi-Tech Institute of TechnologyOffice at P-119, Bajaj Nagar,MIDC Waluj, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar 431136...Respondents
Legal Reasoning
wp7619.24-3- 4.Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that asper the regulation of the respondent University, he was entitled tohave three grace marks and had those been awarded timely, hecould have cleared the degree course successfully within thestipulated time. Due to their inaction and abdication of the duty hehad to suffer gravely and is entitled to have not only the degreecertificate but even the damages.5.Per contra, learned advocate for the respondents, byreferring to the affidavit in reply filed by the Professor and the incharge Director of Board of Examination and Evaluation of therespondent - University, would submit that there is no dispute onfacts, however, the petitioner was not entitled to have the gracemarks according to Ordinance no. 95. It could have been awardedto him only in case if grant of grace marks would have resulted inpassing the entire examination of semester/year. He would furtheradvert our attention to the revised syllabi for all branches of T.Y.(B.E.), which was made effective from the academic year 2013-14.According to Rule 1864 of the revised syllabus, the score of a studentis considered in aggregate for passing. For passing examination, acandidate must obtain minimum 40% marks in each theory paper andclass test taken together, however, the candidate must obtainminimum 35% marks at the University theory examination and in wp7619.24-4- aggregate must score 45% of the total marks obtainable at the thirdyear semester I and II examination together. He would submit thatthe petitioner had scored 46% marks in the first semester of the thirdyear and 30.13% marks in the second semester of the third year.The aggregate percentage of both these marks taken together for Iand II semesters, were not sufficient to clear the entiresemesters/year even if he would have been awarded grace marksunder Ordinance no. 95. Consequently, no fault was committed bythe respondents in not awarding him the grace marks which were notadmissible. The petitioner should blame himself and cannot claimdamages.6.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner hadscored 46% and 30.13% marks in the first and second semesters ofthird year respectively. 7.The relevant portion of Ordinance 95 reads as under:-“0.95 GRACE MARKS FOR PASSING IN EACH HEAD OFPASSING (THEORY / PRACTICAL / ORAL / SEASONAL)(EXTERNAL/ INTERNAL)The examinee shall be given the benefit of grace marks only forpassing in each head of passing (Theory / Practical /Oral /Seasonal) in external or internal examination as follows:- wp7619.24-5- Head of passing Grace Marks upto Up to 502051 to 100 3101 to 150 4151 to 2005201 to 2506251 to 3007301 to 3508351 to 4009and 401 and above 10 Provided that the benefit of such grace marks given in differentheads of passing shall not exceed 01 percent of the aggregatemarks in that examination. Provided, further that the benefit of grace marks under thisOrdinance shall be applicable only if the candidate passes theentire examination of semester/year”. A careful reading of this Ordinance and particularly, theproviso makes it abundantly clear that award of grace marks ispossible only if the candidate passes the entire examination ofsemester/year.8.R.1864 of the revised syllabus of B.E. Civil of therespondent University reads as under:-“R.1864RULE FOR COMBINED PASSING wp7619.24-6- 1)To pass the examination a candidate must obtainminimum 40% of Marks in each Theory paper & class test takentogether however, the candidate must obtain minimum 35% ofMarks at the University theory Examination. The candidate mustobtain a minimum aggregate of 45% of the total marks obtainableat the T.E. Semester – I & II Examination taken together.” 9.Ordinance no. 95, if read conjointly with R.1864 of therevised syllabus, makes it abundantly clear that a candidate mustobtain a minimum aggregate of 45% of total marks obtainable at thethird year semester I and II examination taken together.10.When there is no dispute that the petitioner had scored46% marks in the first semester examination and having scored30.13% marks in second semester examination, even if, as perOrdinance no. 95, he was awarded maximum grace marks awardablethereunder i.e. 10, his aggregate percentage for semester I and II ofthe third year taken together would not have crossed 45% which wasthe bare minimum aggregate of the marks according to R.1864 of therevised syllabus.12.In the light of above, no fault can be found with therespondents, in not acceding to the request of the petitioner forawarding grace marks much less he would not be entitled to claimany damages. Rather, the petition seriously suffers from grave delay wp7619.24-7- and laches inasmuch as though he had appeared for the secondsemester of the third year way back in the year 2018-19, he has beenremiss for all these years till he woke up from long slumber in filingthis petition on 18.07.2024.13.There is no merit in the petition. It is dismissed.14.Rule is discharged. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL , J.) rlj/
Arguments
wp7619.24-2- …..Mr. S.V. Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3Respondent no. 4 – served - absent ….. CORAM:MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATED:15 OCTOBER 2024 JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :- Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learnedadvocate Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, waives service for respondent Nos.1 to 3. With the consent of both sides, the matter is heard finally atthe stage of admission. 2.The petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus directing therespondents, who are the University, its Board of Evaluation, theofficers of the examination department of the University and Principalof the institute of technology, wherein he was taking education adegree course in engineering.3.He is praying for grant of three grace marks inTransportation Engineering - II (paper Code CED-355) of B.E. Civil-Regular-Revised 2011-12, 3rd year, second semester examination.Since he had cleared all other examinations including 4th yearexamination, he prays that the respondents be directed to issue himthe degree certificate of B.E. Civil. He is also claiming damagesagainst the University for not awarding grace marks though he wasentitled to, adversely affecting his career.