Ambika Vohra v. Guru Nank Dev University, Amritsar & Ors.

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J. Petitioner is aggrieved of the communications dated 4th November, 2008 (Annexure P-6) and dated 22nd January, 2009 (Annexure P-7) whereby the petitioner has been informed regarding the cancellation of of her examination for improvement of B.Com. Examination and improvement of the marks. Brief facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioner was admitted to Bachelor of Commerce (Professional) Part-I in Hindu Kanya College, Kapurthala, which is affiliated to Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (respondent No.1). She cleared the B.Com. (Professional) Part-I examination securing 437 out of 650 marks. She was promoted to B.Com. CWP No.7894 of 2009 -2- (Professional) Part-II, which also she cleared by securing 469 out of 750 marks. The petitioner was then promoted to B.Com. (Professional) Part-III. Petitioner applied for improvement in two subjects of B.Com. (Professional) Part-II i.e. (i) "Cost Accounting" and (ii) "Managerial Economics". In these two subjects, the petitioner had earlier secured marks 43 & 35 out of 100 marks respectively. When the petitioner applied for improvement, she was issued two separate Roll Nos. 19502 & 20907 for B.Com (Professional) Part-II and B.Com (Professional) Part-III respectively. The petitioner appeared in B.Com (Professional) Part-III examination along with the two subjects of B.Com (Professional) Part-II. Petitioner was issued fresh result card for B.Com (Professional) Part-II with improved marks in the two papers i.e. 56 & 58 marks out of 100 marks respectively. It is stated that keeping in view the revised marks, the petitioner has secured 505 marks out of 750 marks in B.Com (Professional) Part-II examination. Petitioner also cleared B.Com (Professional) Part-III examination in which, she had appeared. The petitioner received the final detailed mark-sheet when it was found that the marks reflected for B.Com (Professional) Part-II remained unchanged and did not contain the revised marks, which the petitioner secured by re-appearing. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.08.2009 to the respondent No.3-University. Receiving no response, another detailed representation dated 16.10.2008 was submitted to the respondent No.4-Controller of Examination, G.N.D.U., Amritsar. In response of the aforesaid representation, the petitioner has received the letter dated 04.11.2008, followed by another letter dated

22.01.2009. Both these lettes are impugned in this petition. The respondents in their reply have taken a categorical stand that under the regulations of the University, petitioner could not have appeared for improvement until she had completed B.Com (Professional) Part-III examination. To justify the action, respondent-University has relied CWP No.7894 of 2009 -3- upon University regulations published under the University Calendar governing the improvement of the subjects. It is further the stand of the university that under rules, petitioner could not have appeared for improvement except on completion of the final examination of B.Com (Professional) Part-III. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner was issued the roll number for appearance in the exam for improvement due to oversight. It is also admitted position on record that the petitioner has successfully qualified B.Com (Professional) Part-III examination in April, 2008. There is no dispute as for the factual aspects are concerned. The petitioner applied for improvement of the marks in two subjects and request of the petitioner was accepted. She was allotted the roll number by the University and the petitioner appeared in the examination and improved the marks. Her result was also declared and it was only when the revised mark-sheet was to be issued that the respondents became aware of their mistake, which was sought to be rectified by denying the final mark-sheet. The only plea of the respondent's is that petitioner could have improved the marks of the papers only after the final B.Com (Professional) Part-III examination. The controversy in this case is no more res integra. In case Sanatan Gauda Versus Berhampur University and others, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1075, the appellant passed his M.A. examination securing the aggregate 364 out of 900 marks i.e. more than 40% of the total marks and secured admission in the law course. He continued to study and completed the course. Even when the petitioner had appeared in the final law exam, his result for pre-law and inter-law examinations were not declared. In response to his repesentation to the Bar Council and other authorities for declaration of his result, it was replied that since he had secured less than 31.5% marks in his M.Ed degree examination, he was ineligible for admission to the law course. The CWP No.7894 of 2009 -4- matter was finally considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein following observations have been made:- "In these circumstances, the argument is that the appellant cannot take advantage of the fact that the University allowed him to appear at the examination. I am afraid, the stand of the respondent cannot be accepted as correct. From the letters of the University it is clear that it was not depending upon the opinion of the Principal and had decided to verify the situation for itself. In that situation it cannot punish the student for the negligence of the Principal or the University authorities. It is important to appreciate that the appellant cannot be accused of making any false statement or suppressing any relevant fact before anybody. He had produced his marks-sheet before the College authority with his application for admission, and cannot be accused of any fraud or misrepresentation. The interpretation of the rule on the basis of which the University asserts that the appellant was not eligible for admission is challenged by the appellant and is not accepted by the College and my learned Brother accepts the construction suggested by him as correct. In such a situation even assuming the construction of the rule as attempted by the University as correct, the Principal cannot be condemned for recommending the candidature of the appellant for the examination in question. It was the bounden duty of the University to have scrutinised the matter thoroughly before permitting the appellant to appear at the examination and not having done so it cannot refuse to publish his results. CWP No.7894 of 2009 -5- In the present case, the petitioner applied for improvement by re- appearing in two subjects. Her request was accepted and she was permitted to appear in the improvement exams. She improved the marks. Under rules she was entitled to do so only after final exam which she did simultaneously with the final exam without any objection from the respondents. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the action of the respondents refusing to give credit of improved/revised marks is totally un- warranted and illegal. Petitioner after having appeared without any objection and qualifying the examination cannot be denied the benefit of improved marks particularly when the petitioner has already cleared the B.Com. (Professional) Part-III examination. This petition is accordingly allowed. Annexures P-6 and P-7 are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to issue the revised marks-sheet of the petitioner by incorporating the improved/revised marks within one month.

25.05.2010 Gagan (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE