V.Rakshagan v. The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.11.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.33898 of 2007and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007V.Rakshagan ... Petitioner.Vs.1.The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32, rep. By its Registrar.2.The Ragas Dental College, rep. By its Principal, E.C.R.Road, Uthendi, Chennai-119. ... RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to callfor the records of the first respondent relating to the "Guidelinesfor Revaluation of Theory Answer Paper" and quash the guidelineNo.4 as ultravires, arbitrary and for consequential directiondirecting the first respondent to re-valuate the answer paper ofthe petitioner in subject code 4134, "Human oral Anatomy,Physiology, Histology and Tooth Morphology" Written which wasconducted in August 2007 and publish the result. For Petitioner : Mr.Veera KathiravanFor Respondents : Ms.AL.Gandhimathi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RThe writ petitioner has joined in the B.D.S course in theacademic year 2005-2006 in the second respondent college. In theexamination conducted in August 2006 for the first year, he hasfailed in one paper and subsequently by writing the paper in thenext exam held on February 2007, he has passed the said paper.Subsequently, in the second year B.D.S. Course, in the examinationconducted in August 2007, the petitioner appeared for all theexaminations and out of five subjects, he has failed in onesubject. According to the petitioner, minimum pass mark is 50.While so, the petitioner has got 40 and since the second year isthe break system method, he would loose one complete year, andhence the petitioner applied for revaluation. The petitioner'sapplication was not considered by the first respondent Universityon the basis that as per the guidelines issued by the firstrespondent university for revaluation of theory answer paper itdoes not permit revaluation if a student failed in any paper evenin the previous semester. The petitioner has filed the presentwrit petition to quash the guideline No.4 as ultravires, arbitraryand for consequential direction directing the first respondent tore-valuate the answer paper of the petitioner in subject code 4134,"Human oral Anatomy, Physiology, Histology and Tooth Morphology"Written, which was conducted in August 2007 and publish the result.2. According to the petitioner, as per Guideline No.5, he isentitled for revaluation being a person who has completed thesecond year course. The further case of the petitioner is thatGuideline No.4 which states that revaluation is not permissible, ifa candidate failed in any other subject including those of previousYears/Semesters, it will affect the student community at large andit is also unjustified. It is the further case of the petitionerthat he is meritorious and hence his application should beconsidered as a special case. 3. The first respondent University has filed counteraffidavit. While the factual issues which were raised in this caseare not in dispute, it is the case of the first respondentUniversity that the concept of revaluation came into effect for thefirst time when the Governing Council of the first respondentUniversity in Resolution No.19, dated 10.1.2007 has felt thatthere should be a provision of review of valued answer papers ofcandidates who are regular in their studies and passed examinationsconducted both by the college and by the University, secured goodmarks to avoid failure by accident or error of judgement and thattoo to provide an opportunity to them to satisfy themselvesregarding the valuation. It is based on that, guidelines were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prescribed by the Governing Council of the first respondentUniversity. As per the Guidelines which were approved in thecouncil, revaluation is not permissible, if the candidates havefailed in any subject including those of previous Years/Semesters.It is further submitted that the the revaluation only in breakSemester/Year. In the University Statutes, in respect of B.D.S.Course, the second year and fourth year are admitted to be breakyears and therefore, students who complete the second and fourthyear are entitled for revaluation provided they passed all thesubjects including in the previous year in the first attempt. Itwas based on the said resolution of the Governing Council of thefirst respondent University, the Standing Academic Board of theUniversity has passed the resolution approving the subject ofrevaluation of Answer Paper for all the U.G.Courses from February2007. The case of the first respondent is that in as much as thepetitioner has failed in one of the subjects in the first yearexamination held in August 2006, which paper, he has subsequentlypassed in February 2007, by applying the said regulations, he wasnot eligible for revaluation. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andrespondents and perused the entire records. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied uponGuideline No.5 to state that in as much as the petitioner isentitled for revaluation, since he has applied for revaluationafter completing the second year and hence he should have beenconsidered by the first respondent University for revaluation ofthe answer papers. According to the learned counsel, GuidelineNo.4 does not confer power whereas Guideline No.5 confer such powerand they are to be read separately. It is not in dispute that thepetitioner has not passed all papers in the first year in the firstattempt. 6. Guideline Nos.4 and 5 as given by the first respondentUniversity is as follows:-"4. The Revaluation of papers is notpermissible if the candidates have failed inany other subject including those of PreviousYears/Semesters.5. The Revaluation is allowed only if thefailure leads to break of Semester/Year(B.D.S.Course-Review is permissible in Secondand Final year B.D.S.Only)"7. The contention raised by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, that Guideline Nos.4 and 5 are to be read, isolated hasno meaning at all. What is conferred in Guideline No.5 is that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ those who completed the second and fourth Semester/year areeligible for revaluation, since break system is in vogue. The saidguideline is certainly subject to other guidelines in respect oftheory and valuation papers. 8. Guideline No.4 states the eligibility of a person who applyfor revaluation and it states that in the previous years, he shouldhave passed in all papers in the first attempt. He should not havefailed in any of the subjects in the previous years or semester. Areading of Guideline Nos.4 and 5 makes it very clear that thepetitioner, who has admittedly failed in one of the paper in thefirst year examination is not eligible for revaluation at all. Asa matter of fact, the petitioner has passed the supplementaryexamination in the first year, therefore by applying Guideline No.4he is not eligible for revaluation.9. In my considered view there is no ambiguity in GuidelineNos.4 and 5 and it is not arbitrary or ultravires. Guideline No.4is not a matter of unconditional right for revaluation at all.Learned counsel for the respondents has rightly contended that theconcept of revaluation of Answer papers was introduced in the laterstage when the Governing Council of the first respondent Universityhas felt that there should be a provision of review of valuedanswer papers of candidates who are regular in their studies andpassed all examinations conducted both by the college and by theUniversity, secured good marks to avoid failure by accident orerror of judgement and that too to provide an opportunity to themto satisfy themselves regarding the valuation. Therefore, the firstrespondent University is bound by its Guidelines and Statutes.This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannotdirect the University to act against its own statutes. 10. The Supreme Court has held in A.P.CHRISTIANS MEDICALEDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in AIR 1986SC 1490, that the universities owe their existence to theirStatutes, and they cannot be directed to disobey their own Statutesand Rules. The Supreme Court has made the following observation:-"... Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issueappropriate directions to the University to protect theinterests of the students. We do not think that we canpossibly accede to the request made by Shri Venugopal onbehalf of the students. Any direction of the naturesought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgressionof the provisions of the University Act and theregulations of the University. We cannot by our fiatdirect the University to disobey the statute to which itowes its existence and the regulations made by theUniversity itself. We cannot imagine anything more https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ destructive of the rule of law than a direction by thecourt to disobey the laws."11. In view of the same, there is absolutely no substance inthe contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.nvsriTo1.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-32,1 cc t Mr.Veerakathiravan, Advocate, sr. 687321 cc to Mrs. A.L. Gandhimathi, Advocate, Sr. 68819W.P.No.33898 of 2007and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007NTK (CO)kk 5/12