Bombay High Court
Swati Shantaram Bagde vs The Controller Of Examination, ... on 8 March, 2017
Bench: Shantanu S. Kemkar
27.wpl.626.17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 626 OF 2017
Ms. Swati Shantaram Bagde ]
Indian Inhabitant residing at ]
B/204, Rugved Bldg, Gokul ]
Township, Boling Road, ]
Virar (West), Palghar 401303 ] ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Controller of Examination, ]
University of Mumbai, Examination ]
Section, Commerce Unit, ]
st
M. J. Phule Bhavan, 1 Floor, ]
Room No. 36, Vidyanagari Campus, ]
Santacruz (East) Mumbai - 400098 ]
2. University of Mumbai ]
st
M. J. Phule Bhavan, 1 Floor, ]
Room No. 36, Vidyanagari Campus, ]
Santacruz (East) Mumbai - 400098 ]
3. The Principal, ]
Siddharth College of Law, ]
348, Anand Bhavan, ]
D. R. Dadabhai Naoroji Road. ] ... Respondents
...
Mr. D. V. Deokar i/b Mr. Radhakrishna Jha for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Habeeb 1/20
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:12:30 :::
27.wpl.626.17.doc
Mr. Chandrakant Y. Talwatkar, Office Superintendent of Siddharth
College of Law.
Mr. Deepak J. Mane, Clerk of Siddharth College of Law.
CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &
PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
DATE : 8th MARCH 2017
JUDGMENT (Per PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.):
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. By consent of counsel for the respective parties, petition
is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
3. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the
communication dated 30th January 2017, issued by the Respondent
No.1. The petitioner also seeks direction to be issued to the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith declare the withheld result of
Habeeb 2/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
the petitioner of having passed the 6th semester of 3rd year LLB
course for the academic year 2014-15.
4. The factual matrix relevant for adjudication of the issues
involved in this petition is as follows;
(a) The petitioner is a student of respondent no. 3 college.
She applied for admission in law faculty of three years
course and secured admission in the year 2012-13.
(b) The petitioner passed her 1 st and 2nd year LLB in the
first attempt which is evident from the mark-sheet
annexed to the petition. The course was conducted by
the respondent no. 2 University.
(c) After attending lectures for the third year and on
clearing the Vth semester examination the petitioner
appeared for practical examination conducted by
respondent no. 3 on 12th March 2015 and 13th March
2015. The said fact is supported by the attendance-
Habeeb 3/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
sheet of the practical examination conducted by
respondent no. 3. She passed in practical examination
of Drafting Pleading and Conveyancing and secured 76
marks out of 100. She also passed in the practical
examination of Moot Court and secured 70 marks out
of 100.
(d) The petitioner appeared for the final 6th Semester of 3rd
Year LLB course conducted by respondent no. 2
University in the month of April 2015. She was
shocked to know that in the statement of marks which
were made available in the office of respondent no.3
on or about 23rd July 2015, there was an endorsement
"ADC" that is admission cancelled, although the
petitioner has appeared and passed in practical
examination as well as all the 4 subjects in the written
examination.
(e) The petitioner therefore, approached the Registry of
respondent no. 3 and informed them that she had
Habeeb 4/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
appeared in the practical examination and therefore,
she should have been declared pass. The respondent
no. 3 vide letter dated 31 st July 2015, informed the
respondent no. 1 that the petitioner is the bonafide
student of 3rd Year LLB of the said college and that she
had appeared in the March 2015 practical examination
and that she has secured the marks as stated above. It
was also stated that the respondent no. 3 had failed to
mention the marks against her name in the practical
examination sheet submitted to respondent no. 1 and
2. The request was made to add the marks of practical
examination in the mark-sheet of the petitioner.
(f) Since there was no response to the said letter, the
respondent no. 3 forwarded another letter dated 20 th
August 2015 with similar request. The petitioner also
made a similar request vide her letter dated 20th August
2015.
(g) The petitioner kept on following up with the
Habeeb 5/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
respondents for declaration of her results. By letter
dated 26th February 2016, the respondent no.1
intimated the respondent no. 3 and the other colleges
that, on account of delay in forwarding the marks of
the practical training of the students from I, II, III and
IV semester, their admissions were declared cancelled.
However, after deliberations the respondent no.1 had
called upon a meeting with such students on 2nd March
2016 and they were called upon to attend the said
meeting alongwith relevant documents. Vide
communication dated 15th March 2016, the respondent
no. 1 intimated the respondent no. 3 and other colleges
that the candidates mentioned there in were allowed to
appear for practical training of I, II, III and IV subject
examination of LLB (Sem. II, IV & VI) and BLS (Sem.
VI, VIII & X) on condition that the decision of
Management Council held in due course will be
communicated to them which will be binding on
Habeeb 6/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
colleges and that the results of the said candidates will
be kept in reserve till the matter is resolved. The name
of the petitioner was not appearing in the said
communication.
(h) Vide letter dated 19th March 2016, the respondent no. 1
has informed the respondent no. 3 and other colleges
that since the college had delayed in forwarding the
marks of the students in the practical training, the sub-
committee appointed by the Board of Examination has
not accepted the same and therefore, the result of the
said students including the petitioner were disallowed.
(i) The respondent no.3 by letter dated 6 th April 2016
requested the Vice Chancellor, University of Bombay to
consider the statement of the staff member about the
lapse in forwarding the marks and declare the result of
the petitioner. The petitioner also forwarded the letter
dated 7th April 2016 with a similar request. Since there
Habeeb 7/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
was no response, the petitioner vide letter dated 23 rd
March 2016 requested respondent no. 3 to take up the
matter with respondent no.2. The respondent no. 1
vide letter dated 29th April 2016, informed the
respondent no. 3 that, since the said college has not
submitted the practical training marks, of the students
of the said college qua First Year (Sem. II) and Second
Year (Sem. IV) conducted in April 2015, their results
were declared as cancelled with remark ADC.
Thereafter, the college has communicated the marks
and hence as per Administrative decision fine of
Rs.5000/- has been imposed on the principal of college
and fine of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed on college
and on depositing the said fine, the respondent nos. 1
and 2 will declare the result of the said students.
(j) The petitioner had forwarded her application to the
Students Grievance Readressal Committee of
respondent no. 2 on 11th April 2016 and reiterated her
Habeeb 8/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
request. The grievance committee vide letter dated
24th May 2016, intimated the respondent no. 1 about
the decision taken by the committee in the meeting
held on 12th May 2016. The decision taken by the
committee was quoted in the said communication, the
translated version reads as follows ;
"In the said meeting the student and professor of the
college were present. The say of student and the
professor of the college was heard. The Committee
has noticed that in the case the entire fault is that of
the college. This was also earlier placed before
Board of Examination. The Student Grievance
Redressal Committee is recommending that taking
into consideration the interest of the student the
above said case be placed before Board of
Examination for its review."
(k) The respondent no. 3 deposited the fine amount with
respondent no. 2. Thereafter vide communication
dated 5th October 2016, the reserved result of 4
students of respondent no. 3 were declared. However,
the petitioners result was not declared. The petitioner
forwarded her representation dated 1 st December 2016
and requested respondent nos. 2 to 10 to look into the
Habeeb 9/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
matter. The Registrar of respondent no. 2 made the
following remarks.
"Please do the needful. Resubmission to the BOE be
the alternative. Since the similar four students has
been considered and her case is not considered".
(l) Inspite of recommendations and the remarks of the
Registrar the respondent no. 1 issued the
communication dated 30th January 2017, stating that
the request of the petitioner for declaring her result of
3rd year LLB course had in April 2015 is rejected.
Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for
seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the respondents. We have also perused the documents annexed to
the petition such as attendance-sheet, the marks allotted in practical
examination as well as written examination and the communications
issued by the respondents.
Habeeb 10/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the victim of circumstances. He further submitted that
she has passed in practical as well as written examination. He
further submitted that the other students have been granted relief
and petitioner has been discriminated by respondents. The
petitioner has suffered mental agony for last two years for no fault of
her. He further submitted that for the lapse or inadvertence on the
part of the respondent no. 3 who have admitted their mistake, the
petitioner should not be made to suffer. He further submitted that
the petitioner is a bonafide student who had attended all the lectures
and by putting hard work had cleared her examination. He
submitted that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 ought to have considered
the request for declaration of result.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents have pointed
out the factual aspects of the matter and submitted that the
respondents are required to take such decisions since the statement
Habeeb 11/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
of marks of practical examination was not forwarded by the
respondent no. 3. He further submitted that to avoid any
malpractice, the respondent no. 1 is required to adopt such
approach, whenever, the marks of practical examination are not
forwarded by the respective colleges or the same are forwarded
belatedly after declaration of results. However, Mr. Rodrigues the
learned counsel for the respondent in his customary fairness has
submitted that the respondents are not attributing any malafides to
the lapse on the part of the respondent no. 3.
8. On going through the documents on record and after
hearing the submissions advanced by the respective counsels, it is
noted that the petitioner is the bonafide student of the respondent
no. 3. She had attended the lectures of 3 rd year LLB course
throughout and appeared for the 5th Semester examination in the
year 2014 and passed in all the subjects. She was issued the hall
ticket by the respondent no. 2 University to appear for 6th semester
examination of the LLB course. The petitioner appeared for practical
examination conducted by respondent no. 3 on 12 th March 2015 and
Habeeb 12/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
13th March 2015. The said fact is fortified by the attendance-sheet of
the practical examination which has been annexed to the petition
and not disputed by the respondents. The record also reveals that
the petitioner has passed in practical examination of Drafting
Pleading and Conveyancing (DPC) and scored 76 marks out of 100
marks. She also passed in practical examination of moot court and
scored 70 marks out of 100 marks. This fact is corroborated by the
common mark-sheet for the practical examination. It is also noted
that the petitioner had appeared for all the four subjects of the final
6th Semester of 3rd year LLB course examination conducted by
respondent no. 2 in the month of April 2015. The petitioner was
however shocked that her result was not declared. However, on
verifying the statement of marks it was noticed that there was
remark "ADC" i.e. admission cancelled, though the petitioner has
passed in practical examination as well as all the four subjects in
written examination. It is apparent that the petitioner has to suffer
without any fault on her part. She was required to run from pillar to
post for seeking justice and made correspondence with the
Habeeb 13/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
respondents by intimating that her result be declared since she has
appeared for the practical examination as well as written
examination and has cleared all the subjects. It was pointed out that
for the lapse on the part of the respondent no. 3 in forwarding her
practical examination marks the petitioner should not be victimized.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had appeared for
practical examinations conducted on 12th March 2015 and 13th
March 2015 and that she has secured the marks as stated above in
the said examination. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has
passed in all the subjects in the written examination and it is only
because the marks of practical examination were not forwarded by
the respondent no. 3 to the respondent nos. 1 and 2. There was a
remark of ADC viz. admission cancelled. We have taken into
consideration the fact that the respondent no. 3 has intimated the
respondent no. 1 by letter dated 31 st July 2015 that the petitioner
had secured 76 marks in DPC and 70 marks in moot court in the
practical examination conducted by respondent no. 3. It was also
mentioned that there was a lapse on the part of respondent no. 3 in
Habeeb 14/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
mentioning the marks secured by the petitioner. The respondent no.
1 was therefore, requested to add the marks of the petitioner in
practical examination. The respondent no. 3 forwarded another
letter dated 20th August 2015 to the respondent no. 1 as a reminder
to expedite the possible changes in the practical marks of the
petitioner as she was trying to appear for the Bar Council
Examination for which the mark-sheet is compulsory. The petitioner
had also forwarded communications with a request for declaring her
results that she has passed in the examination. The respondent no. 3
had also forwarded another letter dated 6 th April 2016 to the Vice
Chancellor of the University wherein it was stated that there was a
lapse on the part of the staff of the college as they had not entered
her marks and therefore, the petitioner's result was not declared by
the University. The statement of the concerned clerk is enclosed with
the said letter. It is pertinent to note that vide letter dated 29 th April
2016 the respondent no. 1 had intimated the respondent no. 3 that
the University had not declared result with a remark ADC in respect
to the students of semester IInd and semester IVth on account of not
Habeeb 15/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
submitting the marks of practical training held in April 2015 as
marks were not forwarded within time by the respondent no. 3. It
was further stated that the University administration had taken a
decision to issue order of declaration of results of the said students
subject to the payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- by the college and
Rs.5000/- by the professor. Apparently, the respondent no. 3 -
college deposited the fine amount as stated above and the results of
the four students were declared vide communication dated 5th
October 2016. The petitioner has rightly submitted that she was
discriminated as the case of the petitioner was identical with other
students. It is pertinent to note that prior to declaration of results
vide letter dated 15th March 2016, the said students were allowed to
appear for practical training examination of LLB on condition that
the decision of management council will be communicated to them
and also that the results of the said candidates will be kept in reserve
till the matter is resolved. Inspite of herculean efforts to convince
the respondents a letter dated 30 th January 2017 was issued by
respondent no. 1 stating that the request of the petitioner to declare
Habeeb 16/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
her results is rejected. We are not convinced with the decision of
respondent no. 1. The results of the other students were declared
who had appeared for the other semesters. The petitioner was
declared ADC although she has passed in the practical as well as the
written examination. The petitioner cannot be at loss without her
fault, particularly when, there was a mistake on the part of
respondent no. 3. similar mistake was condoned by imposing fine
and consequently declaring the result of the other students. The
bonafides of the petitioner and respondent no. 3 about attending the
practical examination by the petitioner are not doubted. The
attendance of the said examination is also borne out by the
attendance-sheet and the marks obtained by the petitioner. In the
circumstances, it would be unjust and arbitrary to withhold the
result of the petitioner and or to declare her ADC. The petitioner has
already suffered trauma since May 2016.
10. We are alive to the fact that the petitioner was the
bonafide student of respondent no. 3 and she has secured good
Habeeb 17/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
marks in the practical examination as well as the written
examination. The respondent No. 3 had admitted the clerical
mistake committed by the staff, on account of which the practical
marks were not submitted to the University before declaration of the
result of 6th Semester examination. We are also conscious of the fact
that the respondent no. 1 have declared the result of the other
students by accepting the penalty of Rs.50,000/- from respondent
no. 3. We are of the opinion that the agony of the petitioner must
come to an end. In the light of the fact that the lapse on the part of
the respondent no. 3 was condoned by accepting the fine of
Rs.50,000/- for not forwarding the practical examination marks of
other four students, we are inclined to impose a fine of Rs.15000/-
upon the respondent no. 3 which is to be deposited with the
concerned account department of respondent no. 2. We are however
not inclined to grant any compensation as prayed by the petitioner.
The said prayer is also not seriously pressed by the petitioner. In
the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the reliefs as
prayed for by the petitioner are required to be granted.
Habeeb 18/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
11. Hence we passed the following order.
O R D E R
a) The impugned communication dated 30th January
2017 issued by respondent no. 1 to the petitioner
is quashed and set aside.
b) The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to
forthwith declare the withheld result of the
petitioner of having passed the 6th Semester of the
3rd year LLB course for the academic year 2014-15.
c) The respondent No.3 is directed to pay an amount
of Rs.15000/- towards fine for belatedly
forwarding the practical examination marks of the
petitioner. The said amount be deposited in the
concerned account department of respondent no.
2 on or before 31st of March 2017.
d) The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to issue
the marks-sheet to the petitioner for the 6th
Habeeb 19/20
27.wpl.626.17.doc
Semester of 3rd year LLB course for the academic
year 2014-15.
e) No order as to costs.
f) Petition stands disposed off.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)
Habeeb 20/20
