Mohd.Jaseem Khan vs Ignou & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 1146 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                    Pronounced on 02.04.2009

+      W.P.(C) 2907/2007, C.M. No. 5452/2007


       MOHD.JASEEM KHAN                                ..... Petitioner
                     Through : Mr. M. Ahmad, Advocate.

                      versus

       IGNOU & ORS.                                          ..... Respondents

Through : Mr. Aly Mirza, Advocate, for Resp. Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. D. Stephen. K. Yanthan, Advocate, for Resp. No.3.

CORAM:

       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT


1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers        Yes
       may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?           Yes

3.     Whether the judgment should be               Yes
       reported in the Digest?



S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

%

1. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying a gold

medal to him for the Diploma Course in HIV and Family Education for the term 2004-06.

2. The facts necessary for deciding the case are that the petitioner and the third respondent

were admitted to the Diploma course conducted by the first respondent, Indira Gandhi National

Open University (IGNOU), a university established by a Parliamentary enactment in 1985. It is

claimed that the petitioner obtained a Grade Point Average (GPA) of 4.66 whereas the third

WP(C) No.2907/2007 Page 1 respondent had obtained lesser grades, working out to 4.34. It is, alleged that IGNOU declared

the result and ultimately held convocation in 2007; its action in awarding the Gold Medal to the

third respondent is alleged to be mindless and arbitrary.

3. In support of his claim, the petitioner relies upon a marksheet issued to him on

23.02.2006, which indicated the total GPA average of 29.78. Apparently, this was defective

since this did not include the assignment marks awarded for the second year. The University

thereafter issued a revised marksheet in which the assignments were marked; his tally of marks

improved to 32.65. The third respondent's grade sheet issued, copies of which have been

produced by the petitioner, dated 23.02.2006 and 23.09.2005 reveal that she had been awarded

total tally of grades as 30.40. There is actually no difference in the two marksheets; both of them

also reflect the same pattern as in the case of petitioner - the assignments for the second year

were not reflected.

4. The petitioner, contended that since he had better grades and ranking than the third

respondent, the IGNOU'S denial of Gold Medal and the attendant honors, were arbitrary. He had

unavailingly represented to the respondents; the latter by letter dated 28.02.2007 rejected the

representation.

5. The rejection letter of IGNOU dated 28.02.2007 is in the following terms:

"This is with reference to your letter dated 1st February, 2007 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, IGNOU under RTI Act-2005.

Your case has been examined time and again. In this connection it is stated that your CMA grades were updated after the Convocation and alongwith other students including Dr. Jyotsana Kapil, the awardee of the Gold Medal. It is confirmed that either before the updation of CMA grades or after the updation of the CMA grades Dr. Jyotsana obtained higher grades than you and the comparision of your revised Grade Card with her pre-revised Grade Card is not in order. A copy of her revised Grade Card as well as yours is sent herewith for your perusal."

WP(C) No.2907/2007 Page 2

6. The respondents contend that the initial award of marks in the case of both the petitioner

and the third respondent were erroneous since the assignments for the second year had not been

shown in the marksheet. The IGNOU contends that once revision took place, the respondents

tally of grades increased to 34.13 where the petitioner's tally grades was 32.65. According to the

respondents the petitioner is premising his claim on a mistaken assumption that his revised

grades are better than the pre-revised grade of Respondent No.3 which is not accurate.

7. The Court has considered the materials on record. The total tally of grades of the

petitioner and the third respondent may be seen by following chart:-

                       Party                   Date of marksheet

        Pre-revised    Petitioner            23.02.2006              29.78

        Revised        Petitioner            15.02.2007              32.65

        Pre-revised    Respondent No.3       23.09.2006              30.40

        Revised        Respondent No.3       15.02.2007              34.13

8. Now, the petitioner contends having secured GPA of 4.66 and alleges that the

Respondent No.3 secured GPA of 4.34. He is right in so far as securing GPA of 4.66 is

concerned; however, comparison made with Respondent No.3 is not correct since her GPA of

4.34 was prior to the revision; after the revision it stood at 4.87 (i.e. 34.13/7). It is evident,

therefore, that the petitioner is trying to make a comparison of two situations which are not

similar at all. The Grade Point Average (GPA) secured by him after revision cannot be compared

with the pre-revision GPA of the Respondent No.3, who too received a similar benefit and

clearly emerged with a better performance, having a total tally of 34.13 grades.

9. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that there is no infirmity in the respondent's

action, awarding Gold Medal to the Respondent No.3.

WP(C) No.2907/2007 Page 3

10. The writ petition has to, therefore, fail; it is accordingly dismissed, along with the

accompanying application.

                                                                   S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J

APRIL 02, 2009
'ajk'




WP(C) No.2907/2007                                                                   Page 4