Recently, the Punjab & Haryana High Court addressed a matter concerning the University’s wrongful actions affecting the petitioner’s career. The law student was declared to have failed two subjects of his BALLB exams. The Court decided that the Vice-Chancellor must implement corrective measures within two months due to the seriousness of the University’s arguments, which lacked a legal basis.
In addition, the Court awarded exemplary, which lacked a legal basis. In addition, the Court awarded exemplary damages of Rs. 1,00,000 to the petitioner, to be paid by the University within the same timeframe. The Court observed that the wrongful actions had significantly impacted the petitioner’s career and granted the Vice Chancellor the authority to investigate, assign responsibility to the concerned officials, and recover costs as per legal provisions.
Brief Fact :
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari/mandamus to quash the result dated 20.10.2023, in which the petitioner was declared ‘fail’ by the respondent University in the B.A. LL.B. 6th Semester Paper-6 (C) on Land Law and Rent Laws, held in May 2023. The petitioner, a student in the B.A. LL.B Integrated 5-year course at the University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh, admitted in 2016, faced failure in the subject during the 6th Semester after initially failing in May 2019. The petitioner attempted the paper again as a reappear candidate in May 2023 but was marked as failed due to a scaling down of marks. Apart from this subject, the petitioner successfully appeared in all other papers across the semesters, making this the only disputed paper in the present case.
Contention of Petitioner:
The Counsel for the petitioner contends that when he enrolled in the respondent-University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh, in 2016, he was governed by the “Rules Regulating Admission and Promotion to B.A./B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) 5 Years Integrated Course”. He argues that according to Rule 3, a student must obtain at least 45% marks in each paper to pass, and the assessment was based on a 60:40 split between theory and internal assessment. The counsel emphasises that the rules applicable at the time of his admission mandated this split. However, the University amended these rules in 2022, changing the assessment to 80:20. The petitioner, who took the re-appear examination for “Land Law and Rent Laws” in May 2023, scored 54 out of 80 marks, exceeding the passing percentage. He asserts that the University wrongfully scaled down his marks to 41 out of 60, declaring him as “fail” without any legal authority or proper provision, thereby jeopardising his academic career. The counsel seeks the quashing of the impugned result and requests the University to declare petitioner as having passed based on his actual marks.
Contention of Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner, having enrolled in the academic session of 2016-17, was governed by the existing rules and regulations at that time. The respondent argues that any amendments made in 2022, effective retroactively from December 16, 2018, do not apply to the petitioner due to his admission date. The counsel stated that the petitioner was assessed using the 60:40 ratio throughout his academic course, including all subsequent semesters. When the petitioner took the re-appear examination in 2023, despite the examination being based on the new 80:20 ratio, the University applied the original 60:40 ratio for scaling down the petitioner’s marks from 54 out of 80 to 41 out of 60, arguing that it was within its rights to do so. The counsel further referenced Regulation 19 of the Panjab University Calendar, which pertains to internal assessments, and claimed that it allowed for proportional adjustments in marks where no internal assessment was provided. Thus, the University maintains that the reduction of the petitioner’s marks was justified based on the regulations in force at the time of his admission.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that the petitioner challenged the University’s differing assessment criteria for the subject ‘Land Law and Rent Laws’, which he re-appeared for in May 2023. The original regulations specified a minimum passing mark of 45% for both internal assessments and theory papers combined. The petitioner secured 54 out of 80 marks in the theory paper but received zero in internal assessments.
Despite surpassing the passing threshold, the University reduced his score from 54 to 41 by applying an unverified conversion formula from 80:20 to 60:40 based on his admission year, asserting that the amended rules don't apply, states, “There is nothing on record nor it has been shown to the Court and rather it has been so stated by the officers who are present in the Court and learned counsel for the respondent-University that there is no formula designed and there is no law or source of power by which such a power was exercised by the examination department of the University. It was on their own whims and fancies that the respondent-University converted the marks of the petitioner and reduced the same which resulted the petitioner failing in one paper namely, ‘Land Law and Rent Laws’ of the aforesaid 5 years integrated course”.
The Court found this practice unjustifiable, noting a lack of any legal basis or University regulation to support the score reduction. It emphasised that the University acted without authority, undermining the petitioner’s academic rights. The Court rejected the University’s reliance on Regulation No. 19, stating it was inapplicable to the case’s circumstances. The Court noted “Students of the University cannot be left to the whims and fancies of the staff of the University as they on their own create their own law. The rule of law has to prevail in all circumstances. In the Indian Legal System the old analytical school of thought which was propounded by Austin, stated that law is a command of the sovereign, will not apply to the Indian Legal System after attaining of independence. Indian Legal System is governed by rule of law in which the Constitution of India is supreme. Particularly, the students cannot be dealt with on the whims and fancies of the administrative staff of an educational institution which is a known esteemed institution”.
Ultimately, the court deemed the University’s actions illegal and detrimental to the student’s career, asserting that such arbitrary decision making cannot stand.
The decision of the Court:
The Court decided that the Vice Chancellor must address the issue and implement corrective measures within two months. Additionally, the Court awarded exemplary damages of Rs. 1,00,000 to the petitioner for the wrongful actions affecting their career, to be paid by the University within the same period. The Vice Chancellor is also authorised to investigate the matter, fix responsibility among officials, and pursue recovery of the costs as per legal provisions.
Case Title: ROHAN RANA v. PANJAB UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Citation: CWP-13089-2024 (O&M)
Coram: Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Vishal Gupta
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Akshay Kumar Goel
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
