Basant Mertia, Son Of Narendra ... vs The University Of Pune And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 855 Bom

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Mr. Girish Kulkarni, learned counsel,

appears and waives service of notice of rule on

behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr.A.V. Anturkar,

learned counsel, appears and waives service of

notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.5.

Mr.P.I. Khemani, learned Assistant Government

Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of

rule on behalf of respondent No.6.

2. In the facts and circumstances, the matters

are taken up for final hearing today.

3. The petitioners, in both the petitions, have

approached this Court by filing the present

petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution

praying for quashing and setting aside an order

dated May 22, 2003 passed by the University of

Pune, respondent No.1 herein, by which, the

petitioners were declared ineligible and by

directing them to declare the result of the

petitioners for examination of Part-I, S.E.

(Civil), and to permit them to appear in Part-II

examination.

4. The case of both the petitioners is that they

had undergone the course in S.E. Part-I and

appeared in the examination in December, 2002.

Unfortunately, however, their results were not

declared. They, therefore, have approached this

Court by filing these petitions. Interim relief was

not granted in their favour and the respondent-

University has not declared their results.

5. Several contentions have been raised at the

time of hearing of the petitions. Mainly it was

urged that both the petitioners were eligible to

appear at the examination. Unfortunately, their

results were not declared since, according to the

University, they were not eligible to appear.

6. Now, in this connection, our attention was

invited by the learned counsel that the petitioners

had obtained 12 marks in "Testing of materials"

(Exhibit-I to the affidavit in reply, page 41). It

is, however, the case of the petitioners that there

was an error on the part of the College in

calculating marks and putting the figure in the

marksheet. It was submitted that the marks which

were to be given was on the basis of 50 marks

(maximum). Unfortunately, however, due to mistake

on the part of the examiner of the College, maximum

marks were considered as 25 and on that basis, 12

marks were given to them. Now, if maximum marks are

50 and not 25, the result would be that instead of

12 marks, both the petitioners would get 24 marks.

The mistake was corrected. Letters were also

written by the college authorities to the

University clarifying the above error and mistake

but the University did not accept it stating

therein that nothing could be done in the matter.

After the marks were received by the University,

since no remedial action was taken and now a

communication was sent by the University treating

the petitioners as ineligible, they have approached

this Court.

7. It may also be stated at this stage that

apart from the stand taken by the College vide its

letters dated 10th March, 2003 and 24th April,

2003, both the examiners had also addressed a

letter, dated 10th March, 2003 to the Controller of

examination of the first respondent University in

which it was stated as under:-

"After the names of above mentioned students were out of the defaulters list, minimum marks were given to them.

Unfortunately by mistake at that time, considering maximum marks as 25, these marks were given as 12. Actually the marks should have been 24 out of 50.

Actually the terms of these students have been granted. But the error on our part has caused their failure in the term work leading to loss of one year. The error on our part is due to over sight and not deliberate. In the interest of the students career, it is therefore requested that their marks may kindly be changed to 24/50."

8. In view of the above letters, in our opinion, it would be appropriate, if the University is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, keeping in view the letters addressed by the University as well as by the Examiners.

9. It is, no doubt, contended by the learned

counsel for the respondent-University that both the

petitioners were not eligible and the action of the

University is lawful. It was also submitted that

they had not completed "satisfactory term work".

10. In our opinion, it would be appropriate, if

the University would reconsider the matter, taking

into account the letters written by the University

as well as by the Examiners.

11. The contentions raised on behalf of the

University that in such matters, Courts should not

interfere as held by the Supreme Court in

Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa and others vs. State

of Karnataka and Others, , cannot

be upheld. The said decision would not apply to the facts of the case. If there is an error on the part

of the college authorities and it was specifically

communicated to the University, alongwith the

letter by examiners, in our opinion, it would be in

the interest of justice, if the University

reconsiders the prayer of the petitioners and

college authorities. But the prayer of the

petitioners that final direction may be granted

cannot be accepted as,in our opinion, the

University has to consider all the facts and

circumstances. At that time the University will

also consider as to whether the students would be

eligible to get benefit of Rule 4 of the Rules and

Regulations for B.E. Degree course under the

Faculty of Engineering of the University of Pune.

It would also consider about the fees paid by the

petitioners. Let such a decision be taken as

expeditiously as possible preferably within three

weeks.

12. Rule made absolute accordingly to the above

extent. In the facts and circumstances, there shall

be no order as to costs.

13. If the contentions of the petitioners are

upheld, subsequent action will be taken by the

University on that basis. If it is against the petitioners, it is open to the petitioners to take

appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and

disposal of this petition will not come in their

way. Parties be given copies of this order duly

authenticated by the Sheristedar/Private Secretary.