Sri Satya Pal Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1841 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, (J)

1. Both petitioner and private Respondent No. 3 took final examination in M.Sc. (Physics) way back in 1999. When the result was declared Respondent No. 3 was shown to have secured first position and petitioner second.

2. Petitioner challenged this and sought revaluation of his answer scripts. On revaluation he outscored respondent No. 3 and then approached Respondent University for setting right the record. His plea was but rejected on the strength of the relevant University Regulation (14.22) which stipulated that results of an examination declared once could not be disturbed due to revaluation of candidates answer scripts. He has now filed this petition for striking down the relevant regulation which according to him was irrational and unreasonable generating absurd result, in the process.

3. On 14.8.2001 L/C for University, Mr. Sawhney sought adjournment to enable the University to have a second look at the impugned Regulation. He informed the court today that it had passed Resolution No. 4 to make amends by making suitable modification in the Regulation which now provides that the position attained by a student in the examination would not be indicated in the mark-sheet. However a certificate showing first, second and third positions would be issued to a student on the request after declaration of the revaluation results.

4. This clinches the issue and redresses the grievance because a candidates merit position would not be finalised after the result of an examination was declared. This renders it unnecessary to examine the validity of University Regulation 1 (14.22) which now stands appropriately amended. Mr. Sawhney, however, submitted that amendment brought about was to operate prospectively as otherwise it could reopen other similar cases of previous years.

5. That, however, does not come in our way to grant appropriate relief to petitioners who has been struggling for vindicating his claim all these years. It is also noticed that no other candidate had approached this court or the University for a similar relief. Therefore, it becomes easy to dispose of this petition by providing as under:-

6. Respondents 1-2 are directed to consider petitioner case for fixing his merit position under its Resolution 4 after notice to R-3 and pass appropriate order in this regard and issue requisite certificate to him showing his correct position within two months from receipt of this order. This shall not, however, constitute any precedent for any other similar case henceforth.

7. dusty.