High Court · 2024
Facts
(1) wp-562-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.562 OF 2024Vishal s/o Rajendra Thaware,Age: 24 years, Occ. Student,R/o Gajanan Nagar, Majalgaon,Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed...PetitionerVersus1.Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar MarathwadaUniversity, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Through its Registrar.2.The Director Examination And EvaluationBoard, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar MarathwadaUniversity, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. 3.Swatantrya Senani Ramrao Awargaonkar,Law College, Beed,Through its Principal...Respondents …Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar h/f Mr. D. S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.Mr. C. V. Thombre, Advocate for Respondent No.3. … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :- 12th MARCH 2024.JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- 19th MARCH 2024.JUDGMENT (Per: S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.):- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent ofthe parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage ofadmission.2.The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India seeking directions against respondent nos.1and 2 to accept form and fees submitted by respondent no.3-College andundertake the process of re-evaluation and re-checking of the answer-sheets. (2) wp-562-2024.odt3.The petitioner contends that he was student of five yearsB.A., LL.B. Course and prosecuting his studies in 5th year withrespondent no.3-College. He appeared for 10th / final semesterexamination conducted by the respondent-University in the month ofApril/May-2023. On 02.08.2023 results were declared, the petitioner isshown to be failed in the subject of Insurance Law (Optional Legal).The petitioner applied for photo copy of the answer-sheet of the subjectin which he was declared failed. On 07.08.2023 he received photo copyof answer-sheet. After perusal of the photo copy it is noticed that hesecured 26 marks in theory and 12 marks in practical. He has strongbelief that he could have awarded more marks than what is reflected inthe photo copy. According to the petitioner, he deposited fees for re-evaluation of answer-sheet in the subject of Insurance Law on03.10.2023 with respondent no.3-College. Further, the petitionersubmitted photo copy of the answer-sheet to respondent no.2 andrequested him to declare the result as soon as possible. According to thepetitioner, he has deposited requisite fees with respondent no.3-Collegefor re-evaluation of Insurance Law answer-sheet. As such, he tooknecessary steps as per rules.4.According to the petitioner, on 04.11.2023, respondent nos.1and 2 declared result of re-evaluation on official website. Surprisinglythere was no trace about his result. On enquiry he came to know thatrespondent no.3-College failed to deposit fees/charges within stipulatedtime with respondent nos.1 and 2. Resultantly, his request for re-evaluation is not considered. According to the petitioner, he is not atfault. It is the fault of either College or University Authorities. Hemade request to respondent no.2 to consider his case and declare theresult accordingly. In this circumstance, the petitioner prays for thedirections against the University.
Legal Reasoning
(5) wp-562-2024.odteight clear days from the date of issuance of photo copies. Thereafter,examination wise / subject-paper wise list of seat numbers needs to beforwarded by the College to the Examination Section. After receipt ofapplications the Vice Chancellor has to nominate the retired teacher orany other expert in the subject as a member of the Committee. TheCommittee so formulated requires to evaluate whether, prima facie,there is grievance warranting re-assessment of the answer book. Thecases recommended by the Committee are required to be preferred tothe teachers/experts in the relevant subject. If on re-assessment it isfound that 10% plus marks more than original are secured by theexaminee, the marks awarded by the subsequent examiner shall beawarded to the concerned examinee. 10.Looking to the aforesaid scheme, if we look to the facts ofthe present case, what can be noticed here is that the result of the mainexamination was declared on 02.08.2023. The petitioner made anapplication for photo copy on 07.08.2023. The University providedphoto copy to the College. The respondent no.3-College published aNotification dated 27.09.2023 thereby informing the students to receivethe photo copies and submit applications for re-evaluation during theperiod from 03.10.2023 to 07.10.2023. The petitioner has placed beforeus the receipt indicating that he had deposited the requisite fees withthe College for re-evaluation of the answer-sheets on 03.10.2023 i.e.within the schedule prescribed in notice as published by the College.The University had granted time to deposit the applications alongwithfees with the University upto 12.10.2023. However, respondent no.3-College deposited the fees alongwith applications on 08.11.2023. Bythat time the result of the re-evaluation was already declared.11.The aforesaid sequence of events clearly suggests that thepetitioner who is final year law student has taken the necessary steps (6) wp-562-2024.odtfor re-evaluation of the answer-sheet as per the UniversityRegulations . Therefore, no fault can be found with the petitioner in theentire process. Apparently, respondent no.3-College belatedly depositedthe fees alongwith applications of students on 08.11.2023 i.e. afterdeclaration of the result of re-evaluation. In this background, theUniversity returned the Demand Draft submitted by the College. Theimpugned order passed by university records similar reason.12.Pertinently, the petitioner is a final year law student. Hisfailure in the examination not only results in the loss of academic year,but also it would be lifelong stigma on his academic record. TheUniversity regulations provides the facility for re-evaluation as perprescribed the procedure. The obligations are cast upon the College toact as coordinator between students and University in the process.Petitioner would entitle to get re-evaluation of the answer-sheets by theUniversity once he takes requisite steps in compliance of regulations.As stated above, there is no reason to find fault with the petitioner. It isrespondent no.3-College, who acted in careless and negligent mannerwhile discharging its duty as coordinator. 13.We find that petitioner cannot be put to disadvantage, whenhe deposited the requisite fees with the College within stipulated time.The failure of the College to transmit the re-evaluation fees to theUniversity within stipulated time could have been condoned in theinterest of the students. If necessary, the College could have beenimposed penalty. In such situation, the University was expected tosecure the interest of the students by penalizing the defaulting College.We find that negligence on the part of respondent no.3-College isunpardonable. However, the student cannot be made sufferer for wrongof the College. Therefore, we deem it proper to direct the University toaccept the re-evaluation fees of the petitioner and carry re-evaluation of (7) wp-562-2024.odthis answer-sheets as prescribed under Rules. We also deem it proper toimpose cost upon respondent no.3-College, who is responsible forsufferings of the students. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:ORDERa.Writ Petition is partly allowed.b.The respondent nos.1 and 2 shall accept re-evaluation fees fromthe petitioner and carry re-evaluation of the answer-sheets of thepetitioner within a period of one month from date of this order anddeclare and forthwith communicate the result of such re-evaluation tothe petitioner.c.The respondent no.3-College shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only) within period of ten days from date of thisorder, out of which Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) shall bedeposited with the University and Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only)shall be paid to the petitioner.d.Writ Petition is disposed of.e.Rule is made absolute in above terms.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE JUDGEDevendra/March-2024
Arguments
(3) wp-562-2024.odt5.Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned Advocate appearing for thepetitioner submits that the results of the examination were declared on02.08.2023. The petitioner applied for photo copy of the answer-sheetwithin five days of declaration of the result i.e. on 07.08.2023. Afterreceipt of the answer-sheet he found that he secured 26 marks in thetheory and 12 marks in the practical. The petitioner deposited fees withrespondent no.3-College for re-evaluation of the subject. However,because of negligence on the part of the College authorities, fees couldnot be deposited within time. The student cannot be made to suffer forsuch wrong on the part of respondent no.3-College.6.Mr. S. S. Thombre, learned Advocate appearing for theUniversity vehemently opposes the petition. He would invite attentionof this Court to the communication dated 11.12.2023 issued by theUniversity to the College, thereby returning the Demand Draft dated30.10.2023. He would submit that the College deposited the DemandDraft on 08.11.2023, whereas the result of re-evaluation was alreadydeclared on 04.11.2023. Therefore, Demand Draft received from theCollege has been returned. Since, the entire procedure as per rule wasover, the University cannot reopen issue and permit re-evaluation atthis stage.7.We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for therespective parties and perused record. The University has prescribedthe rules and procedure for re-counting of the marks and evaluation ofthe answer books. The Part-A deals with the “supply of photo copies ofanswer books to the examinee/s”. The facility is made available withintention to bring transparency in the examination system and ensureits credibility. The examinee is required to submit prescribedapplication duly signed by the examinee to the Principal of Collegealongwith requisite fees within five clear days from the date of (4) wp-562-2024.odtdeclaration of result of relevant examination. The rule prescribes that“any application received after expiry of last date is liable to be rejectedwithout assigning any reason”. The obligation is cast upon thePrincipal of the College to forward the relevant information of theapplicants through email/CD to the Controller of the Examinationwithin eight clear days from the date of declaration of the result ofrelevant examination. The Principal is mandated to forward theDemand Draft alongwith application. The photo copies of the answerbook is then made available to the students within 10 to 12 days fromthe receipt of the application. 8.The Part-B of the rules and procedure prescribes for re-counting of the marks which is available subject to the payment of thefee of Rs.50/-. In case any discrepancy on any count is found that can becorrected by the University with authentication by the Controller ofExamination. Clause 4 provides that if any question or part thereof inthe answer book is observed to be undervalued / unassed, the same canbe got valued from the same Examiner and additional marks can beawarded. The change is required to be informed to the examinee by wayof Notification and corrected statement of marks. 9.The rules and procedure for re-evaluation of the answerbook is provided in Clause (C), it requires that the applicant shall berouted through the College within five clear days from the date ofissuance of the photo copies of answer book by the University. Theexaminee is eligible to apply for two answer books. The applicationalongwith prescribed fees shall be submitted by the examinee to therespective Colleges. In case, change of mark in subsequent assessment /revaluation is plus by more than 10%, the 75% of the fees is refundable.The Principal of College is under obligation to forward such applicationto the University alongwith fees collected through Demand Draft within