Bombay High Court
Pupul Son Of Chandrakant Borkar vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj ... on 19 December, 2012
Bench: B.R. Gavai, A.P. Bhangale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5693 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO.5339 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO.4688 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO.5639 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO.5655 OF 2012
[1] WRIT PETITION NO.5693 OF 2012
PETITIONERS : 1. Pupul son of Chandrakant Borkar, Aged about 22
years, Occupation - Student, resident of F-101,
Jyashta Apartment, Dattatraya Nagar, Nagpur.
2. Devashri Ram Khandade, Aged about 20 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of E-96, 1/6, HBQ,
Vishwakarma Nagar, Rajkamal Square, Nagpur.
3. Pravin Anurag Wake, Aged about 23 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Sudarshan Nagar,
Manas Mandir, Wardha.
4. Nazia Anjum Sarwar Ali, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of 421, Old Bidipeth,
Thakur Plot, Umred Road, Bada Tajbagh, Nagpur.
5. Akansha Mohanrao Malode, Aged about 20 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Kelkar Wadi,
Patle Pariya Layout, Wardha.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
2
6. Anirudha Tripathi, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of 44, Rose Colony,
Behind Shyam Lawns, Near Jawahar Nagar,
Nagpur.
7. Shamim Sheikh, Aged about 20 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of |Quarter No.2/41, Raghuji
Nagar, HN, Wandile, Nagpur.
8. Aniket Akarte, Aged about 22 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of "Anurag" Tiwasa Road, She-
ig ghat, Tq. Warud, District
9. Shilpa Tathe, Aged about 22 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Jagnade Chowk, nandanwan,
Nagpur.
10. Monali Nitnaware, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Adhwale layout,
Plot no.83, Umred Road, Nagpur.
11. Kartik Sakharkar, Aged about 23 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Chintamany
Colony, Deoli, District Wardha.
12. Tejaswani Anil Kamble, Aged about 23 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Jogi Nagar, Ring
Road, Shatabdi Chowk, Nagpur.
13. Prabhat Kumar Sony, Aged about 20 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of c/o. Sarkar,
CS2,Trimurty Nagar, Nagpur.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
3
14. Garima Yadav, Aged about 21 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Plot no.3, Varsha Bhavan, Zode
Layout, Belgaon, Umred, District Nagpur.
15. Rahul Rathod, Aged about 20 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Lalpeth Colony, Near Arca
Hospital, Quarter No.23 (A-type), Chandrapur.
16. Kalyani Mulke, Aged about 21 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of 64, Subhash Nagar, Subhash
Chandra Bose High School, Nagpur.
17. Ankush Bhor, Aged about 22 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of C/o. N.D. Pendram, Plot No.64,
Near Subhash Nagar High School, Nagpur.
18. Suraj A. Mankar, Aged about 22 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of Plot no.64, Subhash Nagar,
Near Subhashchandra High School, Nagpur.
19. Harshal Moundekar, Aged about 22 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of F-101, Jayastha
Apartment, Dattatraya Nagar, Nagpur.
20. Ashwini Pandurang Hood, Aged about 20 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Tekadi, Post
Gondegaon, Tahsil Parshioni, District Nagpur.
21. Monalisa K. Lokhande, Aged about 20 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Plot no.16,
Trisharan Nagar, Near Telephone exchange, Pratap
Nagar, Nagpur.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
4
22. Piyush Kumar Shakya, Aged about 20 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of YCCE Jostel,
Wanadongri, Nagpur.
23. Mayank Priyadarshi, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of c/o. A.M.
Bodkhe, By-pass, Umred, District Nagpur.
24. Sandeep Patil, Aged about 20 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of F-101 F-101, Jyashta
Apartment, Dattatraya Nagar, Nagpur.
25. Prateek Meshram, Aged about 22 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of Jattatrodi No.2, Near Hajare's
House, Nagpur.
26. Swapnil Mundle, Aged about 22 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of Near Mate Square, Nagpur.
27. Pushkar Kulkarni, Aged about 22 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of A-319, RCOEM Boys Hostel,
RCOEM Katol Road, Nagpur.
28. Vaibhav Joge, Aged about 21 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Ramkrishna Nagar, Near Sai
Nagar, Wardha.
29. Amandip Osam, Aged about 21 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of Plot no.99, Block No.B,
Netaji Nagar, Bhandara Road, Nagpur.
30. Tejasvita Vijay More, Aged about 24 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Sharda Chowk,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
5
Gandhibagh, Nagpur.
31. Soni Kumari Pandit, Aged about 24 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Pandav Hostel,
Nandanwan, Nagpur.
32. Deepti Nagbhidkar, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Quarter No.
1B-29, W.C.L. Umred Project, Umred, District
Nagpur.
33. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, Aged about 22 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of c/o. Dhanraj Rai,
Yerkheda, Ward No.3, Near Sati Mandir, Kamptee,
Nagpur.
34. Sham Namdeorao Ghosle, Aged about 22 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Post Jarud, Tahsil
Warud, District Amravati.
35. Uday Nimbalkar, Aged about 21 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of Plot no.8, Surkash Nagar,
Dattatwadi, Nagpur.
36. Dhanshree Wasudeo Wakad, Aged about 25 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Plot No.187, Om
Nagar, Nagpur.
37. Ashish Pandurang Chavan, Aged about 22 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Pragati Colony,
Shendurwa Fu, Tahsil Sakoli, District Bhandara.
38. Vaibhav Barde, Aged about 24 years, Occupation -
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
6
Student, resident of Plot no.101, Ayodhaya Nagar,
Nagpur.
39. Mohd. Javed Quamer, Aged about 23 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Shiv Nagar, Near
Durga Mandir, New Nandanvan Plot no.29/B,
Nagpur.
40. Sumit Mulkalwar, Aged about 21 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of 7, Sahas Colony, Pratap
Nagar, Nagpur.
41. Siddharth Vnyapu, Aged about 22 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of T-221, Triveni
Hostel, KTIS, Ramtek, District Nagpur.
42. Kaustubh Kshirsagar, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of c/o. N.d.
Pendram, Plot no.64, Near Subhash Nagar High
School, Nagpur.
43. Vicky Shingne, Aged about 20 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Plot no.23, Chakrapani Nagar,
Pipla Road, Nagpur.
44. Chetan Dongre, Aged about 21 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of 95, Chatrapati Nagar, Wardha
Road, Nagpur.
45. Tushar Patil, Aged about 25 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of At post Patansaongi, Tahsil
Saoner, District Nagpur.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
7
46. Prakalp Warjurkar, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of plot no.1036,
Ashirwad Nagar, Nagpur - 24.
47. Sumitkumar M. Khadatkar, Aged about 24 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of C/o. Sanday
Pantawane, Near Boudha Vihar, Dharampeth,
Nagpur.
48. Tushar Sony, Aged about 21 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Plot no.9, Shila Nagar,
ig Gittikhadan, Nagpur.
49. Kunal Shambharkar, Aged about 19 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Plot no.,28, Nelco
Housing Society, Khamla Nagar, Nagpur.
50. Akshay D. Mathane, Aged about 19 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Plot no.295, Flat
No.SS-1, swapnil Sagar Apartment, North Bazar
Road, Gokulpeth, Nagpur.
51. Ruchika S. Kehdkar, Aged about 20 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of 64, Subhash
Nagar, Subhashchandra High School, Nagpur.
52. Roshani S. Silamwar, Aged about 18 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of C/o. N.D.
Pendram, Plot no.64, Near Subhash Nagar High
School, Nagpur.
53. Mangesh Milindrao Kawade, Aged about 23 years,
Occupation - Student, At Hingangaon, P.O.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
8
Kasarkheda, Tah. Dhamangaon, Railway, District
Amravati.
54. Ashwin D. Itankar, Aged about 20 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of 43, Juna
Bagadganj Road, Nagpur.
55. Ku. Chetna V. Nimje, Aged about 20 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of 43, Juna
Bagadganj Road, Nagpur.
56. Ku. Aarti Chandrashikhar Shrote, Aged about 20
years, Occupation - Student, resident of D.C.
Khasale, near Jama Masjid, Ward No.8,
Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur.
57. Pratik P. Mahalle, Aged about 21 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of c/o. S.B. Gotmare, Block No.
6, VHB Colony, MIG Colony, Giripeth, Nagpur.
58. Pratik T. Thaware, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Ramayan, Plot no.
80, Behind Agrawal Bichayat Kendra, 2nd Canal
Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur.
59. Kiran Sudhakar Ramteke, Aged about 20 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of 36, Sarvashree
Nagar, Umred road, behind Pragati Hall, Nagpur,
60. Romy Kamble, Aged about 22 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Ramtek, District Nagpur.
61. Swaponil D. Virkhade, Aged about 22 years,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
9
Occupation - Student, resident of 64. Subhash
Nagar, Subhashchandra Bose High School, Nagpur.
62. Reena |Wankhede, Aged about 18 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of c/o. B. Wankhede,
near Hanuman Mandir, Shitalwadi, Ramtek, District
Nagpur.
63. Sagar Subhashrao Khadse, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Dayal Nagar,
Near SBI Nachangaon Road, Pulgaon, Tahsil Deoli,
ig District Wardha.
64. Sushant S. Ganvir, Aged about 26 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Indora Bhandar
Mohalla, Next Begawbagh Nagar, Nagpur - 04.
65. Sarthak Charjan, Aged about 22 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of Sawta Colony, Prashant
Nagar, Amravati.
66. Ankita Diwedi, Aged about 21 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of 203, Dattatraya Nagar, near
NIT Garden, Nagpur.
67. Nikhil Kumar, Aged about 23 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Quarter No.197, Vidharbha
Housing Board Colony, Near Nandanwan Police
Station, Nagpur.
68. Prannoy Dev, Aged about 21 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of K-111, Kalyani Towr, Sarkar
Nagar, Chandrapur, District Chandapur.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
10
69. Ramsagar S. Satakolla, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Quarter No.248
Ramnagar, Ghughus, District Chandrapur.
70. Gurudayal Das, Aged about 24 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of c/o.B.N. Sayankar, 35, Lijawal
Housing Society, Gorle Layout, Nagpur.
71. Khushbu M. Singh, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Rayyatwari
Colliery, Njear Durga Mandir, A-type quarter,
ig Chandapur.
72. Pooja S. Lende, Aged about 19 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Gandhichowk, Ramtek, District
Nagpur.
73. Mohdanish Rauf Lulani, Aged about 22 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of C/o. Narendra
Meshram, Swami Vivekanand Ward, Barve Layour,
Ramtek, District Nagpur.
74. Ashwin W. Wakde, Aged about 23 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Plot no.187,
Omnagar, Nagpur.
75. Ankit Gawande, Aged about 21 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of Plot no.4, Abhay Nagar,
Rameshari Chowk, Nagpur.
76. Rahul Sahare, Aged about 23 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of G-60, Gayatri Nagar, Nagpur.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
11
77. Kaustubh Poharkar, Aged about 24 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Gandhi Chowk,
Ramtek, District Nagpur.
78. Mitesh Kumar, Aged about 23 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of c/o. Ashok B. Taiyde,
Rajgurunagar, Hingna, Nagpur.
79. Tushar Bhoyar, Aged about 21 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Plot no.60, Patil Nagar,
Nalwadi, Nagpur Road, Wardha.
80. Amit Gaikwad, Aged about 22 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Tadas Layout, Raghuji Nagar,
Post Manas Mandir, R.V. Road, Wardha.
81. Swati Kuduple, Aged about 22 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Ramnagar, Wardha.
82. Mohd. Hakumoddin Ansari, Aged about 20 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of c/o. Gedam, Plot
no. 213, Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur.
83. Debankar Shandilya, Aged about 25 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Meera Niwas,
Central Excise colony, Telecom, Nagpur.
84. Apurva Olivkar,, Aged about 21 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of 48, Mahatama Fule Nagar,
Manewada Road, Nagpur.
85. Mayuri Rokde, Aged about 20 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Plot No.13, Ayodhya Nagar,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
12
behind Ram Mandir, Nagpur.
86. Kunal Gaoli, Aged about 21 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Plot no.17, Shramdeep
Ashtavinayak Colony, Malgi Nagar, Nagpur.
87. Ashish C. Jadhao, Aged about 20 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of c/o. Gavali House, Raghuji
Nagar, Somwati quarter, Nagpur.
88. Abhishekh Kumar, Aged about 20 years,
ig Occupation - Student, resident of
Shankaraoji Ramji Borikar, New Nandanwan,
c/o. Shri
Nagpur.
89. Amey Arun Ambekar, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of 11/2, Shiv Gangi
Apartments, pandey Layout, Khamla, nagpur.
90. Supriya Mahajan, Aged about 22 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of Samadhi Ward No.1, Pathan
Pura Road, Chandrapur .
91. Charuhas Nimbalkar, Aged about 22 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Nagpur.
92. Gari U Saptarishi, Aged about 19 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of Plot no.46, Central Excise
Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur.
93. Anand Sudhakar Gorde, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of L.I.T. Old Boys
Hostel, LIT Campus, Amravati Road, Nagpur.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
13
94. Prasanna Muley, Aged about 21 years, Occupation
- Student, resident of 278, Behind UITC Road,
Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur.
95. Narendra Meshram, Aged about 24 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of Sangode Traders,
Gurukul Nagar, Parsoda, Ramtek, District Nagpur.
96. Rasika Dhok, Aged about 21 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Flat No.103, Ashtavinayak
ig Apartment, karve Nagar, Wardha Road, Nagpur.
97. Nitin H. Rahangdale, Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of 123. Gram
Panchayat, Parsoo Maswari Gram, Tahsil Arjuni,
District Gondia.
98. Pallavi Bankar, Aged about 23 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Sawata Colony, Ramnagar,
Amravati.
99. Dipankar Roy, Aged about 23 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Plot no.17, Nehru Nagar, Near
Deo Nagar Chowk, Wardha Road, Nagpur.
100. Ankur Trevidi, Aged about 21 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of 468, New Colony, Sahu Road,
Nagpur.
101. Tutan Das, Aged about 30 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of c/o. B.N. |Sayankar, 35, Ujwal
Housing Society, Gork Layout, Nagpur-22.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
14
102. Ketan Pandit, Aged about 22 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of c/o. Mr. Anil Pandit, Kelkar
Wadi, Wardha.
103. Prashant Rameshrao kale, Aged about 22 years,
Occupation - Student, resident of c/o. S.S. Khode,
Plot no.11A, Mire Layout, Kabir, Nagpur.
104. Anand Ghange, Aged about 22 years, Occupation -
Student, resident of Plot no.15, New Taqrutiy
ig Colony, Katol Road, Nagpur.
105. Kundan S. Sayankar, aged about 29, years,
occupation - student, resident of at Borgaon
(Meghe), Ward No.1, Wardha.
106. Dhananjay S. Ghadyalji, aged about 22, years,
occupation - student, resident of AD 152,
Vrundawan colony, Katol Road, Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT: Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University,
Nagpur, through its Registrar, Nagpur, Tahsil and
District Nagpur.
Smt. Neeta Jog, Advocate for the petitioners,
Shri P.B. Patil and Smt. T.D. Khade, Advocates for the respondent.
with
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
15
[2] WRIT PETITION NO.5339 OF 2012
Kum. Anchal d/o Rajendra Dangra,
Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student,
2nd Year B.E., R/o. Plot No.139,
H.B. Estate, Sonegaon,
Nagpur-440 025. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, through its
Registrar, Near Institute of Science,
Nagpur
2] Shri Ramdev Baba Kamala Nehru
Engineering College, through its
Principal Ramdev Takdi, Gittikhadan,
Katol Road, Nagpur (But presently known
Ramdev Baba College of Engineering
and Management, A deemed University) .. RESPONDENTS
Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri P.B. Patil and Smt. T.D. Khade, Advocates for respondent no.1.
Shri P.B. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent no.2.
with
[3] WRIT PETITION NO.4688 OF 2012
Achal d/o Chandanji Varma,
Aged about 21 years,
Occupation - Student,
R/o. Near Water Tank, Bus Stand Road,
Mohpa, Tah. Kalmeshwar,
District - Nagpur. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] State of Maharashtra, through
Department of Education,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
16
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] Vice Chancellor, Rashtra Sant
Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University,
Near Maharaj Bag, Nagpur.
3] Controller of Examination,
Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj, Nagpur
University, Near Maharajbagh,
Nagpur.
4] Gurunanak Institute of Engineering and
Management, Nagpur, Dahegaon,
Opp. I.O.C. Petrol Pump,
Kalmeshwar Road, Nagpur through its
Principal. .. RESPONDENTS
Shri H.D. Futane, Advocate for the petitioner,
Mrs. I.L. Bodade, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1,
Shri P.B. Patil and Smt. T.D. Khade, Advocates for respondent nos.2 and 3,
with
[4] WRIT PETITION NO.5639 OF 2012
Nikita d/o Shyam Khapre,
Aged about 19 years,
Occupation - Student,
R/o. Plot No.22, Mahakali Nagar,
Manewada Road, Nagpur. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
The Registrar, Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Civil Lines,
Nagpur. .. RESPONDENT
Shri S.D. Khati, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri P.B. Patil and Smt. T.D. Khade, Advocates for the respondent.
with
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:30:40 :::
17
[5] WRIT PETITION NO.5655 OF 2012
Siddharth s/o Dilip Paldhikar,
Aged 21 years, Occupation-Student,
R/o. Sathe Marg, Dhantoli,
Nagpur. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, through
Controller of Exams,
Maharajbagh Road, Nagpur.
2] Jhulelal Institute of Technology,
Through its Principal,
Lonara, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS
Shri Rohan Chandurkar with Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocates for the
petitioner,
Shri P.B. Patil and Smt. T.D. Khade, Advocates for respondent no.1.
---------
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 19, 2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT (per : B.R. Gavai, J.)
1] Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2] Since the questions of law and fact are common in all these
petitions, the petitions are heard together and are disposed of by passing the
common judgment.
3] All the petitioners are the students and they had appeared for the
Summer 2012 examination conducted by the respondent-University. The results
of the petitioners were declared in the months of June-July-2012. Since the
petitioners felt that the results did not depict their real performance, the
petitioners applied for supply of photostat copies as provided under Direction 9
issued by the University. The petitioners, after the receipt of the Photostat
copies, challenged the valuation, as provided under Clause 9 of the said
Directions. Since, in case of all the petitioners along with all other students,
the result of challenge to valuation was declared as 'No change', the petitioners
have approached this Court. Since it was specific contention that the result of
'no change' was declared, without there being proper valuation and since it was
further challenged that same was not done by following the procedure as
prescribed under Clause 9 of the said Direction, we had directed the respondent-
University to get the answer-sheets reassessed on a random basis. We had
further directed that the assessment should be done by the assessors who were
not the assessors at earlier point of time. Accordingly, the respondent-
university has reassessed the papers of eight students on random basis. The
details of the same are as under :
Roll No.s. Original Marks Marks after re-assessment
150572 22 33.5
4] Since, from the perusal of the said reassessment, it is apparent that
there is drastic change in the marks obtained by the said candidates and the
marks which were allotted to them and in respect of which 'no change' were
notified.
5] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-
University has not conducted the challenge to valuation as provided under
Clause 9 of the said Direction. It is submitted that the Committee, as required
to be constituted under Clause 9, could not have been constituted in as much as
the members, who were competent to be the members of the said Committee,
were themselves not available.
6] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under the garb
of process of revaluation only, only the farce of revaluation was done and
without papers being revalued, 'no change' was notified. It is, therefore,
submitted that the papers of the petitioners may be directed to be revalued and
further that the petitioners may be permitted to appear for the examination
which are commencing from 27.12.2012.
7] As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent-University
submits that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India in such matters is very limited. It is submitted that in the matters
pertaining to academic and education, the court should be slow in interfering
with the decision of the authorities. Shri Patil, learned counsel, on instructions
of the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor, had made a statement that the respondent-
University is willing to revalue the papers of the petitioners. The learned
counsel for the respondent-University submitted that in so far as grant of
permission to appear for the examination commencing from 27.12.2012, the
same cannot be granted, unless a decision in that regard is taken by the Board of
Examination under the provisions of Section 18(1)(e), 31 and 32 of the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the
purpose of brevity).
8] The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
and another .vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others, reported in (1984) 4
SCC 27, Sahiti and others .vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health
Sciences and others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 599 and Sanchit Bansal and
another .vs. Joint Admission Board and others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 157.
9] No doubt, that the Court in the matters pertaining to academic and
education is required to be slow in interfering with the decisions of the
respondent-University. Equally, we do not possess expertise to find out as to
whether the valuation done by the valuers appointed by the University is done
correctly or not and especially so in a technical subject like engineering about
which we are not even aware of A B C. In that view of the matter, though the
learned counsel for the petitioners had urged before us to revalue the papers to
examine the correctness of the valuation or otherwise, we had refrained to do so
and as such, we had directed the respondent-University to get the revaluation
done by the independent assessor, so that a independent opinion by the experts,
who are trusted by the University, is available with us for consideration. We
must appreciate the gesture on behalf of the respondent-University in accepting
the request and getting the papers revalued from the independent assessors, who
were not party to the earlier assessors. The result of an assessment by an
independent assessors, which shows that the petitioners were entitled to more
marks than the ones allotted to them and in respect of the 'no change' was
notified.
10] In so far as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and
another .vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others, reported in (1984) 4 SCC
27 is concerned, the Apex Court was considering the question of validity of
Regulation 104 (1) (3), which denied the revaluation of answer papers. The
Apex Court held that such a rule is not in violation of natural justice. The Apex
Court in the said case has observed thus :
"The Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its
own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in
relation to academic matters in preference to those
formulated by professional men possessing technical
expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day
working of educational institutions and departments
controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court
to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the
problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities
and grass root problems involved in the working of the
system and unmindful of the consequences which would
emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a
pragmatic one were to be propounded."
11]
In the case of Sahiti and others .vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R.
University of Health Sciences and others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 599, the
Apex Court was considering the question of the decision of the Vice-Chancellor
of the University of re-evaluation of answer-sheets of 436 students, who had
failed in the first year M.B.B.S. Examination. In the said case, the Vice-
Chancellor had decided to revalue the answer-sheets of 436 students out of 992
students. The said decision was cancelled by the Executive Council. The
students, being aggrieved thereby, filed a petition before the learned Single
Judge of High Court Andhra Pradesh. The said writ petition was allowed by
the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Being aggrieved thereby, the
University preferred an appeals before the Division Bench and the Division
Bench allowed the appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned Single
Judge. In an appeal challenging therein, the Apex Court found that though the
Vice-Chancellor had a power to direct evaluation, the said power was exercised
by him under the pressure of some of the students and that too selectively in
case of some students and not all the students. In these premises, the High
Court found that if the Vice-Chancellor found that revaluation is necessary, he
should have directed so in case of all the students and not in case of 436
students. In view of this, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts
of the present case.
12] In so far as the judgment in the case of Sanchit Bansal and
another .vs. Joint Admission Board and others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 157 is
concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent-University relies specifically
to paragraph nos.27 and 28 of the said judgment.
ig Paragraph nos.27 and 28
read thus :
"Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking
and selection of candidates for admission with reference
to their performance, the process of achieving the
objective of selecting candidates who will be better
equipped to suit the specialised courses, are all
technical matters in academic field and the courts will
not interfere in such processes. The courts will interfere
only if they find all or any of the followings :
(i) violation of any enactment, statutory rules and
regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist
or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to
anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary
and capricious.
An action is said to be arbitrary and
capricious, where a person, in particular, a person in
authority does any action based on individual discretion
by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the
action or decision is founded on prejudice or preference
rather than reason or fact. To be termed as arbitrary
and capricious, the action must be illogical and
whimsical, something without any reasonable
explanation. When an action or procedure seeks to
achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education
in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which is
uniform and non-discriminatory, it cannot be described
as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide."
The Apex court in the case of Sanchit Bansal (cited supra) itself
has held that when an action of authority is found to be arbitrary or
unreasonable, the court would not be prevented from exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since we find from the perusal
revaluation on the random basis, in the case of eight students, the respondent-
University has acted in a mechanical manner, this is a fit case wherein this
Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
13] In the present case, there is procedure prescribed for providing
challenge to the valuation. Clause No.9 of Direction No.5 of 2004 specifically
provides for the procedure to be followed by the respondent-University, which
reads thus :
4] Eligibility :
i] The examinee shall be entitled to apply in
prescribed form along with requisite fees for photo
copies only of his/her assessed answer books of
such university examination (s) in which he has
appeared.
ii] The examinee shall be eligible to apply for the
photo copy of maximum two answer book (s) of
each immediately preceding university examination
(s) for which he had appeared.
iii] The examinee shall not be eligible to apply for the
photo copy of the answer book (s) pertaining to the
practical, sessional, viva-voce examinations,
dissertation, thesis and also of such university
examination (s) where only grade is awarded
instead of numerical marking.
5] Procedure for Application :
i] The examinee, hereinafter referred to as "Person",
alone shall be entitled to procure the photo copy of
the assessed answer book (s).
ii]
A person desirous of procuring the photo copy of
the answer book (s) shall be required to apply in the
prescribed form. (Appendix-A.)
iii] The person shall be required to submit separate
application for each examination.
iv] The application form is made available by the
university currently at the price of Rs.10/- per form
or at such price as may be prescribed by the
university from time to time.
v] The person shall have to submit application form
within 12 days (both days inclusive) from the date
of declaration of results of the concerned
examination (s).
vi] The person shall have to submit application at the
same college where he/she had submitted the
examination form (s) for the concerned examination
(s).
vii] An application form received after the last date
shall not be accepted by the principal of the
concerned college.
viii] Application form shall be accompanied by the
prescribed non-refundable fee of Rs.300/- per
answer book or such fee as may be prescribed by
the university from time to time payable in Cash or
Demand Draft, drawn in the name of the Registrar,
Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University,
Nagpur.
ix] The application must be accompanied by a xerox
copy of the mark list of the concerned examination
(s) attested by the Principal of the College/Gazetted
Officer of the State/Central Government.
x] The Principal of the College on receipt of such
application (s) shall scrutinize and submit them to
the university in examination-wise separate covers
along-with fees so collected by D.D. in the name of
Registrar, Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur
University, Nagpur not later than 3 (three) days
(both days inclusive) of the last date of submission
of application forms of the concerned examination
(s).
xi]
Application (s) received after due date shall not be
accepted by the university.
xii] Applications incomplete in any respect shall be
liable to be rejected.
xiii] Upon receipt of the application forms by the
university from the colleges. "The Photo/Xerox
copies Cell of the University" shall requisition, in
writing, the concerned answer books of the
examinee from the godown of assessed answer
books of the university and shall then scrutinize the
same for the following :
(a) Whether the total marks in the given paper
awarded to the examinee on the mark list
matches with the marks awarded to the
examinee on the cover page of the answer
book.
(b) Whether the question-wise marks awarded to
all the questions inside the answer book are
correctly carried over on to the cover page.
(c) Whether the total of the question-wise marks
on the cover page is correct.
(d) Whether all the answers in the answer book
have been assessed by the examiner.
(e) If any discrepancy on any of the counts under
Clause a, b or c mentioned hereinabove is/are
noted the same shall be corrected by the
university with the authentication by the
Controller of Examinations or the person
designated by the Vice-Chancellor and finally
verified by the Pro.Vice-Chancellor of the
university.
(f) If any question or part of it in the answer
book is observed to be unvalued, the same
shall be got valued from the examiner in the
subject and additional marks, if any, awarded
shall be then carried, noted and added on the
cover page also and accordingly the total of
the marks shall be corrected with the
authentication by the Controller of
Examinations or a person designated by the
ig Vice-Chancellor for the purpose, and finally
certified by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor.
(g) The change, if any, on above counts shall be
informed to the examinee by necessary
notification and corrected mark list shall also
be issued to the examinee on his/her
surrendering the original mark list to the
university through the college through which
the application was made.
(h) The xerox copy of the answer book shall be
made on the machine, duly concealing the
identity of examinee, examiner and
moderator, if any. The concerned designated
officer shall certified the last written page of
the answer book by placing the stamp, stating
that the pages after the last written page is or
are blank (s) and hence the xerox copy of the
blank pages of the assessed answer book are
not supplied to the examinee, the concerned
designated officer shall sign in original on the
space provided for the stamp.
(i) The photo copies of the answer books shall
be sent to the Principal of respective colleges
for further issuance to the concerned
applicant on procurement of written
acknowledgment from him/her.
(j) The university will endeavour to supply
photo copies to the principal of the concerned
colleges/as for as possible within 30 (Thirty)
days from the date of receipt of application
forms by the university.
14] It is thus clear that a complete procedure is required to be followed
prior to coming to the conclusion as to whether any challenge is required to be
interfered with or not. Though it is a specific contention of the petitioners that
no procedure as prescribed under Clause 9 of the direction was followed, except
mere denial, there is nothing in the affidavit-in-reply. No details are given
whether the Committees are required under Clause 9 were constituted or not.
Except vague denial, there is nothing in affidavit-in-reply. The respondent-
University has also not produced anything on record to point out as to whether
the entire procedure, as provided under Clause 9 of the said direction, was
followed or not.
15] Mr. P.B. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent-University, fairly
concedes that the revaluation is done by the valuer sitting in hall and they are
required to do the valuation as per their conscious. No doubt, every valuer is
answerable to their conscious. However, in such technical subjects, the valuers
are required to value the papers objectively after taking into consideration as to
whether the answers are correct or not, rather than deciding it, according to
their own conscious. We are conscious about the judgments of the Apex Court
that in such matters the court's interference would be minimal and only in
exceptional cases. No doubt that the court would not be expected to issue any
direction pertaining to the academic matters and to substitute its own views as
to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference
to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise.
Equally, the Court cannot sit in an appeal over the decision of the experts.
However, in the present matter, we do not wish to encroach upon the field
which requires technical expertise or specialization which is totally within the
domain of the respondent-University. However, when on random basis out of
eight papers, the change has been found in respect of all the eight papers and
change in matter is found to be substantiated. It has been found that the
candidates, whose papers are reassessed by an independent assessors, were
entitled to more marks than the one given to them and in respect of which 'no
change' was notified. We find that the court cannot sit as an idle spectator and
permit the respondent-University to play with the careers of the students. We
may add that if the independent assessors, who were selected by the respondent-
University, would have found that the marks obtained by the petitioners were
proper, we would not have at all entertain the present petitioners. However, the
fact that in respect of all the eight candidates, who's papers are reassessed by
the University, it has been found that the said candidates were entitled to more
marks than the one allotted to them, we find that it is a fit case wherein the
respondent-University should be directed to revalue the papers of the petitioners
by an independent assessors, who were not the party to earlier assessment.
16] Since in the assessment carried out in case of eight candidates, it
has been noticed that there has been substantial change in the marks and had the
revaluation being carried out correctly, they would have declared as cleared the
subject, we find that, in the interest of justice, it is also necessary to permit the
petitioners to appear for the examination which are commencing from
27.12.2012. However, this shall be subject to the result of the revaluation.
If the revaluation process, the petitioners do not get the marks to clear the
subjects, their appearance in the examination shall be liable to be cancelled and
they shall not claim any equity on the ground of their participation in the
examination process.
17] We are inclined to pass such a direction since it will not be humanly
possible for the respondent-University to complete the revaluation of the papers
of the petitioners within a period of 7 days from today.
18]
We are required to pass this unusual order in the glaring facts and
circumstances. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that we are aware about
the limitations in such matters. However, since we find that there is glaring
mistake at the hands of the respondent-university, we are compelled to pass
order which we are passing in the interest of the students. In that view of the
matter, the petitions are allowed in the following terms :
[i] The respondent-University is directed to revalue the
papers of the petitioners as per the provisions prescribed under Clause 9 of the
Direction No.5 of 2004.
[ii] The respondent-University shall permit the petitioners
to appear for the examination commencing from 27.12.2012, however, this shall
be subject to outcome of the result of the petitioners' revaluation of the papers.
[iii] In the event, the petitioners are not declared passed after
revaluation, the appearance of the petitioners in the examination shall be liable
to be treated as cancelled and the petitioners would not be entitled to claim any
equity on that part.
[iv] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no
order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
