Punjab University & Anr. Vs. T.P. Rahamatullah & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1494 Of 1994 (Arising out of S.L. (C) No.16630/1993)
Petitioner: Punjab University & Anr.
Respondent: T.P. Rahamatullah & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1494 Of 1994 (Arising out of S.L. (C) No.16630/1993)
Judges: KULDIP SINGH & YOGESHWAR DAYAL
Date of Judgment: Feb 22, 1994
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Punjab University Calender, Vol III
Rule 5 – Read with Constitution – Article 226 – Re-evaluation – When can be asked – Candidate allowed to appear in B.Sc. Part III examination provisionally as short of lectures and having not passed house test – Subsequently his result cancelled – Recom-mendation by Principal of the college to relax condition of house test, as candidate not found short of lectures – Results accord-ingly declared with compartment in one subject – Compartment examination not undertaken and instead applied for re-evaluation – Request turned down being more than two years – Writ allowed by High court.Held that High Court committed patent error in allow-ing the writ in declaring him qualified without exams. University directed to afford one opportunity to clear the compartmental subject.
Held:
The respondent took the examination held in April 1986. By a notification dated November 4, 1986 his result was cancelled. The reevaluation under Rule 5 could be availed of in accordance with the time schedule given under Rule 5 from the date of the declaration of the result which was done before November 1986. the Principal wrote a letter dated August 30, 1989, three years after, recommending the University to take a lenient view in the case of the respondent. The University accepted the recommenda-tion and granted necessary relaxation. Under these circumstances the operation of Rule 5 could not have been suspended by the University to await the outcome of the belated recommendation of the Principal. (Para 8)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. T.P. Rahamatullah, respondent 1 in the appeal herein, was a B.Sc. Part III student in the Government College Portblair, Anda-man and Nicobar Islands. He was stated to be short of lectures and had not complied with the condition regarding the passing of the house test. The principal of the college allowed the respond-ent to sit in the B.Sc Part III examination held in April 1986 provisionally, at his own risk and responsibility, subject to the approval of the Punjab University to which the College was affil-iated. At the suggestion of the Principal, the University agreed to permit the respondent to take the examination provisionally. The Punjab University, however, declined to relax the condition of passing the house test and the attendance of lectures. As a consequence, the result of the B.Sc. Part III examination in respect of the respondent was cancelled by the University by the notification dated November 4, 1986. The Principal, Government College Portblair by a letter dated August 30, 1989 informed the University that on reexamination it was found that the respondent was not short of lectures but was only deficient in the passing of the house test. The Principal recommended the case of the respondent for grant of relaxation in respect of the passing of the house test. The Vice-Chancellor, Panjab University, consti-tuted a special committee which met on December 4, 1989. The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Principal and re-laxed the condition of passing the house test. The University, as a consequence, declared the B.Sc. Part III result of the respond-ent by a notification dated January 17, 1990. The respondent was declared pass with compartment in the subject of Chemistry. He was given a chance to qualify the subject of Chemistry by taking the examination which was to be held in the year 1990. The re-spondent did not avail the chance and instead applied for reeval-uation of the paper in the subject of Chemistry in which he was placed under compartment. The University informed the respondent that the answer books relating to the examinations held in the year 1986 were destroyed two years thereafter and as such it was not possible to reevaluate any paper pertaining to the examina-tions held in that year.
4. The respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Calcutta High Court in May 1991 seeking a declaration that, the University having failed to permit reevaluation, he be declared to have qualified the exami-nation. The High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that the respondent be deemed to have passed the Chemistry paper and as a consequence qualified B.Sc. Part III examination of the University. This appeal by way of special leave is by the Punjab University against the impugned judgment of the High Court.
5. We have heard Mr.G.L. Sanghi, learned senior advocate for the appellant. We have also heard the respondent who appears in person. The High Court allowed the writ petition on the following reasoning:-
“This Court has no other alternative but to hold adverse inference for withholding the answer scripts and accordingly I hold that the records have been deliberately withheld otherwise the production of the same would have gone to the benefit of the petitioner. Following this principle and also for not controverting the allegations of the petitioner, this Court has no other alternative but to grant the relief as sought for. Accordingly this petition is allowed.”
6. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in granting the declaration that the respondent be deemed to have qualified the paper of Chemistry without taking the examination. The High Court became totally oblivious to the facts and circumstances of this case. It was the case of the University before the High Court that as a rule the answer books in respect of all the examinations are destroyed after a period of two years of the completion of the examination. We see nothing wrong in having a rule or a practice of this type. No University or examining body can preserve the answer books of all the examina-tions for all the time. The High Court was wholly unjustified in drawing an adverse inference against the University in the facts of this case.
7. Rule 5 at page 437 of the Punjab University Calender Vol. III which reads as under:-
“5. A candidate whose result if declared late may also seek reevaluation within 21 days from the date of declaration of his/her result or within 15 days from the date of despatch of result card by the University office to the College/candidate; whichever is later subject to the condition that no application form shall be entertained after 31st December of the same Calendar Year of examination in the case of annual examination and after 31st March of the ensuing Calendar Year in the case of Supplementary/biannual examinations.”
8. The respondent took the examination held in April 1986. By a notification dated November 4, 1986 his result was cancelled. The reevaluation under Rule 5 could be availed of in accordance with the time schedule given under Rule 5 from the date of the declaration of the result which was done before November 1986. the Principal wrote a letter dated August 30, 1989, three years after, recommending the University to take a lenient view in the case of the respondent. The University accepted the recommenda-tion and granted necessary relaxation. Under these circumstances the operation of Rule 5 could not have been suspended by the University to await the outcome of the belated recommendation of the Principal. The High Court acted with patent illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitu-tion of India.
9. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent in the Calcutta High Court.
10. We asked the respondent as to whether he would like to avail another chance to clear the subject of Chemistry. He has declined to accept the offer. Despite that, keeping in view the interest of justice, we direct the University to give one opportunity to the respondent to clear Chemistry subject of B.Sc. Part III. The University shall do so in case the respondent approaches the University in that respect within three months from today. No costs.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. T.P. Rahamatullah, respondent 1 in the appeal herein, was a B.Sc. Part III student in the Government College Portblair, Anda-man and Nicobar Islands. He was stated to be short of lectures and had not complied with the condition regarding the passing of the house test. The principal of the college allowed the respond-ent to sit in the B.Sc Part III examination held in April 1986 provisionally, at his own risk and responsibility, subject to the approval of the Punjab University to which the College was affil-iated. At the suggestion of the Principal, the University agreed to permit the respondent to take the examination provisionally. The Punjab University, however, declined to relax the condition of passing the house test and the attendance of lectures. As a consequence, the result of the B.Sc. Part III examination in respect of the respondent was cancelled by the University by the notification dated November 4, 1986. The Principal, Government College Portblair by a letter dated August 30, 1989 informed the University that on reexamination it was found that the respondent was not short of lectures but was only deficient in the passing of the house test. The Principal recommended the case of the respondent for grant of relaxation in respect of the passing of the house test. The Vice-Chancellor, Panjab University, consti-tuted a special committee which met on December 4, 1989. The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Principal and re-laxed the condition of passing the house test. The University, as a consequence, declared the B.Sc. Part III result of the respond-ent by a notification dated January 17, 1990. The respondent was declared pass with compartment in the subject of Chemistry. He was given a chance to qualify the subject of Chemistry by taking the examination which was to be held in the year 1990. The re-spondent did not avail the chance and instead applied for reeval-uation of the paper in the subject of Chemistry in which he was placed under compartment. The University informed the respondent that the answer books relating to the examinations held in the year 1986 were destroyed two years thereafter and as such it was not possible to reevaluate any paper pertaining to the examina-tions held in that year.
4. The respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Calcutta High Court in May 1991 seeking a declaration that, the University having failed to permit reevaluation, he be declared to have qualified the exami-nation. The High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that the respondent be deemed to have passed the Chemistry paper and as a consequence qualified B.Sc. Part III examination of the University. This appeal by way of special leave is by the Punjab University against the impugned judgment of the High Court.
5. We have heard Mr.G.L. Sanghi, learned senior advocate for the appellant. We have also heard the respondent who appears in person. The High Court allowed the writ petition on the following reasoning:-
“This Court has no other alternative but to hold adverse inference for withholding the answer scripts and accordingly I hold that the records have been deliberately withheld otherwise the production of the same would have gone to the benefit of the petitioner. Following this principle and also for not controverting the allegations of the petitioner, this Court has no other alternative but to grant the relief as sought for. Accordingly this petition is allowed.”
6. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in granting the declaration that the respondent be deemed to have qualified the paper of Chemistry without taking the examination. The High Court became totally oblivious to the facts and circumstances of this case. It was the case of the University before the High Court that as a rule the answer books in respect of all the examinations are destroyed after a period of two years of the completion of the examination. We see nothing wrong in having a rule or a practice of this type. No University or examining body can preserve the answer books of all the examina-tions for all the time. The High Court was wholly unjustified in drawing an adverse inference against the University in the facts of this case.
7. Rule 5 at page 437 of the Punjab University Calender Vol. III which reads as under:-
“5. A candidate whose result if declared late may also seek reevaluation within 21 days from the date of declaration of his/her result or within 15 days from the date of despatch of result card by the University office to the College/candidate; whichever is later subject to the condition that no application form shall be entertained after 31st December of the same Calendar Year of examination in the case of annual examination and after 31st March of the ensuing Calendar Year in the case of Supplementary/biannual examinations.”
8. The respondent took the examination held in April 1986. By a notification dated November 4, 1986 his result was cancelled. The reevaluation under Rule 5 could be availed of in accordance with the time schedule given under Rule 5 from the date of the declaration of the result which was done before November 1986. the Principal wrote a letter dated August 30, 1989, three years after, recommending the University to take a lenient view in the case of the respondent. The University accepted the recommenda-tion and granted necessary relaxation. Under these circumstances the operation of Rule 5 could not have been suspended by the University to await the outcome of the belated recommendation of the Principal. The High Court acted with patent illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitu-tion of India.
9. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent in the Calcutta High Court.
10. We asked the respondent as to whether he would like to avail another chance to clear the subject of Chemistry. He has declined to accept the offer. Despite that, keeping in view the interest of justice, we direct the University to give one opportunity to the respondent to clear Chemistry subject of B.Sc. Part III. The University shall do so in case the respondent approaches the University in that respect within three months from today. No costs.
