Darshan Sharad Sonwane And ... vs The Sant Gadge Baba Amravati ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5572 Bom

                                                                                        WP3048.21-J.odt
                                                       1/7



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                          WRIT PETITION NO. 3048 OF 2021


Petitioners :-              1.     Darshan Sharad Sonwane, Age 22 yrs., Occupation-
                                   Education,
                            2.     Mahesh Sharad Sonwane, Age 20 yrs., Occupation-
                                   Education, Both R/o Jewad Nagar, Amravati, Tq. &
                                   Dist. Amravati-444606.

                                               -Versus-

Respondents                 1.     The Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University through its
                                   Vice Chancellor.

                            2.     The Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University through its
                                   Registrar.
                            3.     The College of Animation Bio-Engineering and
                                   Research Center (COABARC), Mardi, Amravati.
                            4.     The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary,
                                   Mantralaya, Mumbai.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Mr.S. T. Sonawane, counsel for the petitioners.
                    Mr.S.S.Ghate, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                       Mr. C.A.Babrekar, counsel for respondent No.3.
                          Ms N. P. Mehta, AGP for respondent No.4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    CORAM :           A. S. CHANDURKAR &
                                                      M.W.CHANDWANI, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 21ST APRIL, 2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 14TH JUNE, 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : M.W.Chandwani, J.)

Heard.

KHUNTE

WP3048.21-J.odt

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. This writ petition initially was filed for the direction to the

respondents to accept the examination form of 6 th Semester of Summer

Examination 2020-21 of B.Sc.(Animation) and against the unreasonable demand

of fees for the said course.

4. The petitioners real brothers are pursuing education in B.Sc.

(Animation) course for three years in respondent No.3-College, which is

affiliated to respondent No.1-University. At the time of admission, each

petitioner had paid amount of Rs.80,000/- towards fees. After clearing 1 st and

2nd Semesters of First Year, the petitioners were made to pay the amount of

Rs.40,000/- each. In order to save academic year of petitioners, the father of the

petitioners deposited Rs.40,000/- for each petitioner. The petitioners cleared 3 rd

and 4th Semesters during COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter the respondent No.3

again pressurized to deposit fees for Third Year and the father of the petitioners

paid Rs.20,000/- for each petitioner. At the time of filling of examination form of

6th Semester, the respondent No.3 insisted to clear the dues towards fees to the

tune of Rs.3,00,000/-, else their examination forms shall not be accepted. When

the father of the petitioners demanded fees structure approved by the

respondent No.1, the respondent No.3 denied the same. Therefore, the

complaints were made before the respondent No.1 stating all the facts. The

petitioners approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

5. This Court by its order dated 02/09/2021, directed the respondents to

accept the examination forms of the petitioners for their appearance at B.Sc.

KHUNTE

WP3048.21-J.odt

(Animation) final year examination. Accordingly, the respondents allowed them

to appear in the examination for 6 th Semester.

6. During pendency of the petition, the results of the petitioners for 5 th

and 6th Semesters were declared, wherein the petitioners are shown as "Failed".

The petition was amended for direction to issue corrected mark-sheet of 5 th and

6th Semesters for B.Sc. (Animation) Degree in respect of the petitioners.

7. It is contended in the petition that the petitioners were intentionally

shown by the respondents as "Failed". According to the petitioners, in COVID-19

period, as per guidelines, the respondent No.3 took examination for 5 th and 6th

Semesters for half of the marks and the remaining 50% marks i.e. reserved

marks shall be added in the marks obtained by the students. That has not been

done in the case of the petitioners. Therefore, the aforesaid direction for

correcting the results for 5th and 6th Semesters, have been sought.

8. The respondents appeared and filed their respective affidavit-in-reply.

The respondent No.3 submitted that the proposal has been sent to the

respondent No.1 for deciding the fees structure of new course in B.Sc.

(Animation), which has not been decided by the respondent No.1. Therefore,

the petitioners were charged provisionally. As far as result of 5 th and 6th

Semesters is concerned, the respondent No.1 submitted that the results were

correctly declared by the respondent No.3, because the petitioners failed to

secure marks, which were required for declaring them as "Passed".

9. The initial prayer of the petitioners was redressed by directing the

respondents to allow the petitioners to appear in the 6 th Semester, accordingly,

the petitioners appeared. The remaining grievances of the petitioners are that

KHUNTE

WP3048.21-J.odt

the petitioners were intentionally shown by the respondent No.3 as 'Failed' in 5 th

and 6th Semesters and charging higher fees, than fixed by the respondent No.1.

10. So far as grievance in respect of the results of 5 th and 6th Semesters are

concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

examination of 5th Semester was conducted during COVID-19 period. The

respondent No.3 had given an online practical examination for 50% marks

instead of 100%. The remaining 50% marks were reserved. The learned counsel

for the petitioners submits that whatever marks obtained by the student in 5 th

Semester should be added by 50% of the reserved marks. The learned counsel

for the petitioners projected the calculations in the petition, which are

reproduced here.

"The correct result of 5th Sem, B.Sc. Animation 3 yrs degree course of petitioners no.1 is as under -

Marks Max. Reserve Max. obtained Sr. Marks of Reserve Marks + Practical Subject Marks of by No. Question Marks Obtained Publish Petitioners Paper Marks no.1.

  1 Illustration and                80        40         40           40+18       58
    Comic Design


    Props - III

    Blendshapes - III

    Compositing

                                                                                     (20+2)

"The correct result of 5th Sem, B.Sc. Animation 3 yrs degree course of petitioners no.2 is as under -

KHUNTE

WP3048.21-J.odt

Marks Max. Reserve Max. obtained Sr. Marks of Reserve Marks + Practical Subject Marks of by No. Question Marks Obtained Publish Petitioners Paper Marks no.1.

  1 Illustration and                80        40         40           40+16       56
    Comic Design


    Props - III

    Blendshapes - III

    Compositing

                                                                                    (20+6)"

11. Taking the help of this projection, the learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the respondents instead of adding entire reserved marks,

added the proportionate marks of the reserved marks, which are obtained by the

petitioners in the practical examination and respondent No.3 intentionally

shown the petitioners as 'failed' in 5 th Semester and consequently in 6th Semester

also by calculating average of 1 st to 5th Semesters.

12. As against this, the respondent No.3 submits that the marks have been

calculated by the respondent No.3 as per the directions issued by respondent

No.1. The examination of 5 th Semester for 50% marks during COVID-19 period

was taken and for other 50% marks, the ratio of the marks obtained by the

student in practical examination for 50% were added and even after adding

ratio of 50% marks, the petitioners could not get the minimum marks in 5 th

Semester, which are required for passing. The learned counsel for respondent

No.3 submits that the calculation of marks is properly done.

KHUNTE

WP3048.21-J.odt

13. Considering the nature of dispute between the petitioners and

respondent No.3, this Court by its order dated 20/10/2022, directed the

respondent No.1 through its Assistant Registrar (Examination) as well as

Registrar (Examination Controller) to consider the grievance of the petitioners

regarding calculation of marks for 5 th Semester as done by the respondent No.3.

To facilitate such consideration, the petitioners as well as respondent No.3 were

directed to attend the office of Assistant Registrar (Examination) and Registrar

(Examination Controller) on 01/11/2022 at 11.30 am with all relevant

documents. Accordingly, the petitioners as well as the representative of

respondent No.3 did appear before the Assistant Registrar (Examination) and

Registrar (Examination Controller). After considering all relevant documents

filed by the respective parties, the Assistant Registrar (Examination) and

Registrar (Examination Controller) found that the examination was conducted

for 50% marks and for remaining 50% marks, the respondent No.3 has rightly

given the additional marks in proportionate to the marks obtained by the

petitioners in the practical examination for 50% marks. Ultimately, both the

Assistant Registrar (Examination) as well as Registrar (Examination Controller)

concluded that the result of 5 th and 6th Semesters of the petitioners declared by

the respondent No.3 is correct as per Rules. In wake of report of the experts, in

the field of examination as well as valuation, nothing remains in this regard.

14. Turning to the issue of charging excess fees, it appears that during

pendency of the petition, the respondent No.3 was directed by respondent No.2

to re-submit its proposal for deciding the fees structure of B.Sc. (Animation) in

proper format with necessary documents. Accordingly, the respondent Nos.1

and 2 have decided the fees for the B.Sc. (Animation) as Rs.14,085/- per year.

KHUNTE

WP3048.21-J.odt

Rather, the respondent No.2 by its affidavit-in-reply has submitted that the

respondent No.3 has charged Rs.1,75,490/- in excess to the petitioners. There is

no dispute that the petitioners have paid Rs.1,30,000/- each. The respondent

No.3 ought to have charged Rs.42,255/- for three years course to each of the

petitioner. Thus, the petitioners ought to have been charged Rs.84,510/- for

three years B.Sc. (Animation) course. Whereas, the petitioners have paid total

amount of Rs.2,60,000/-. In view of fees structure decided by the respondent

Nos.1 and 2, the petitioners are entitled to refund of Rs.1,75,490/-, which they

have paid in excess.

15. In view of the matter, the respondent No.3 is directed to refund the

amount of Rs.1,75,490/- to the petitioners within one month from the date of

this order. To that extent the petition is partly allowed.

16. Rule accordingly. No costs.

            (M.W.CHANDWANI, J)                      (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J)




KHUNTE