Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the result dated 20-10-2023, whereby the petitioner was declared fail in B.A. LL. B, sixth semester examination by the Panjab University (‘the University’), a Single Judge Bench of Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J., stated that when an examination paper had the maximum marks of 80 and the student passes the examination by securing 54 marks then if, the University needs to scale down the marks on proportionate basis then the same had to be done by adopting any formula prescribed under any law.
The Court stated that it was on their own whims and fancies that the University had converted the petitioner’s marks, which resulted in the petitioner failing in one paper. Such an action of the University which had an effect on the career of a student was not only illegal and perverse but also deprecated by this Court. Thus, the Court set aside the result of the petitioner directed the University to pay Rs.1 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner within two months.
Background
The petitioner was a student of B.A. LL. B Integrated 5 years course in the University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh. The petitioner took admission in the year 2016 and this five years course consisted of ten semesters. In sixth semester, the petitioner failed in one of the subjects namely ‘Land Law and Rent Laws’ which he had taken in May 2019.
Thereafter, the petitioner again appeared for the aforesaid paper as a re-appear candidate in May 2023. However, the University has showed his status as fail in the re-appear paper based on scaling down his marks which he obtained in the examination. Thus, the petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the University.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that at the time when the petitioner took admission in five years integrated course in 2016, Rules Regulating Admission and Promotion to B.A./B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) 5 Years Integrated Course, 2016 (‘Rules’) would apply to the petitioner. A perusal of the Rules showed that the pass percentage marks were 45% and the marks of theory and internal assessment were to be taken jointly.
The Court observed that the petitioner took an examination for the subject of ‘Land Law and Rent Laws’ in May 2019, wherein marks assigned to him for internal assessment were zero and his marks in the theory paper were also below the minimum percentage of passing marks. Therefore, he failed in the aforesaid paper and, appeared as a re-appear candidate in May 2023. Similarly, in that examination also, the marks were zero for the internal assessment, but in theory paper, he secured 54 marks out of 80 marks. Thus, 54 marks out of 80 marks were more than 45% marks.
However, the Court observed that despite the fact that he obtained 54 marks out of 80 marks, he failed in the examination by the on the ground that for evaluating the result, the marks were downgraded and reduced by applying the formula of 60:40. Therefore, his marks ought to have been reduced from 54 to 41 by proportionately reducing it and converting the formula from 80:20 to 60:40. The Court raised a query as to how and under what provision of law they have reduced and scaled down the marks of the petitioner by converting the criteria from 80:20 to 60:40. The only answer which the Court received was that it was a past practice and thus, they were converting the criteria/formula for assessment of marks of their own at the clerical and superintendent level.
The Court stated that if the University needed to scale down the marks on proportionate basis, then the same had to be done by adopting any formula prescribed under any law. The Court noted that it was stated that there was no formula designed and there was no law or source of power by which such a power was exercised by the examination department of the University. It was on their own whims and fancies that the University had converted the petitioner’s marks, which resulted in the petitioner failing in one paper.
The Court stated that had it been a case that there was any law provision applicable to students for scaling down or reducing of the marks, then it would have been a different situation. However, in the absence of any power or any authority of law the exercise was conducted by the clerical staff on their own without any guidelines or any rules and regulations. Such an action of the University which had an effect on the career of a student was not only illegal and perverse but also deprecated by this Court.
The Court stated that if there was a past practice which was going on and not supported by any provision of law, the same could not be followed in the present case as well. If errors or illegal actions were committed by the University, the same could not be applied to the present case merely because the same was a past practice. The University was always within its rights to incorporate any provision to exercise a power for creating any equality or proportionate distribution of marks. However, the same could not be done only based on precedents which ultimately deprives the rights of their own students.
The Court stated that the students at the University could not be left to the whims and fancies of the staff of the University as they on their own create their own law. The rule of law must prevail in all circumstances. Indian Legal System was governed by rule of law in which the Constitution of India is supreme. The students could not be dealt with on the whims and fancies of the administrative staff of an educational institution. The effect of scaling down of marks had severely jeopardized the career of the petitioner and this Court would never approve of such a practice which was not supported by any law.
The Court stated that the University was well aware that the petitioner ought to have been given theory paper of 60 marks but instead was given paper of 80 marks to avoid their own workload. However, the consequence was that the petitioner’s marks were reduced by scaling down from 54 to 41 which resulted in less than 45% marks and failed the petitioner. Such scaling down by the administrative staff of examination branch was without any provision or authority of law.
Thus, the Court set aside the result of the dated 20-10-2023 and directed the University to issue the Detailed Marks Certificate of the sixth semester to the petitioner based on the marks obtained by him i.e. 54 marks and, thereafter, process the grant of degree to him. Considering the seriousness of the petitions taken by the University based upon the past precedent and not based on any law, the Court directed the Vice Chancellor of the University to look into this issue and take corrective measures within two months.
Further, since the petitioner’s career was affected because of the wrongful action of the University, the Court directed the University to pay Rs.1 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner within two months.
[Rohan Rana v. Panjab University, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 11758, decided on 17-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Vishal Gupta, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
