Disposed

Gauraj H Shah and 15 Ors. v. University of Mumbai and 1 Ors.

Bombay HC31 Aug 2009PIL/52/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL concerning revaluation of exam results. The Court directed the University to expedite decisions on revaluation and declare results timely. The specific issue of whether a 10% mark increase applied retroactively to previous results was kept open while allowing rule amendments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority in the University to expeditiously take a decision on the matter and ensure timely declaration of revaluation results.

Gauraj H Shah and 15 Ors. Vs University of Mumbai… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

(PIL) WRIT PETITION NO. 52 OF 2009

¶5

Gauraj H. Shah and others ).. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The University of Mumbai and another ).. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Mihir Desai for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Rohan Cama for the Applicants (Khusboo Raval & Ms.Redia). Mr. Rui Rodriques for Respondent No.1. Mr. Mandar Goswami, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State.

¶10

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 31ST AUGUST 2009

¶11

P.C.

¶12

When this Public Interest Litigation came up for hearing

¶13

before the Bench on 23^rd July 2009, the Bench passed the following order :-

¶14

“Let the Registry furnish copies of the two letters dated 2^nd July, 2009 and 17^th July, 2009, respectively, to learned counsel appearing for the University. It is stated on behalf of the University that the matter is under consideration of the Authority and generalised scheme for revaluation is under preparation. Counsel appearing for the University thus prays for short adjournment to place the same on record. Liberty to the University to file affidavit-in-reply as well as place on record the generalised scheme which is proposed to be formulated

¶15

¶16

in that regard. However, keeping in mind the fact that the results of the students concerned need to be declared expeditiously, we would direct that by next Thursday, the 30^th July, 2009, the result of the students for revaluation wherever it has been permitted, should be declared. Liberty to file affidavit-in-reply within two weeks granted. Stand over to 6^th August, 2009.”

¶17

Today in Court, a compilation has been placed on record before us. It is evident from this compilation that the Division Bench of this Court on 25^th October 2004 in Writ Petition No. 2636 of 2004 ( Bharlikar Bapu Kondaji v University of Mumbai and others ) had passed the following order :

¶18

“ We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

The parties have agreed to comply with the following suggestions, which shall be observed with a view to ensuring transparency and erffectiveness of the examinations of the Mumbai University :

¶20

(a) The system of revaluation of examination is again introduced. Revaluation should be done only if a Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor directs revaluation on the basis of the application of the student and a scrutiny of the answer-book.

¶21

(b) The marks given by the Moderator in random moderation shall not be given effect to unless the marks are within 10% of the original marks given by the examiner. If the marks are beyond 10 per cent of the original marks, the correction of the paper must be referred to a Senior Member of the teaching faculty of the same subject. The marks given by such a Senior Member must prevail.

¶22

¶23

(c) Application for photo copies of the answer book must be granted within three weeks from the date of the application and photocpies shall be made ready for delivery within the aforesaid period.

¶24

(d) Charges for application are reduced from Rs.400/per answer book to Rs.100/- per answer book, for reverification.

¶25

(e) The Controller of Examinations shall make a report every month to the Vice-Chancellor giving full details of the applications made for verification/revaluation, the change in marks, and the time within which the photocopy/result was furnished to the student.

¶26

(f) If examiners are found careless, appropriate action be taken against them.

¶27

(g) The University would charge Rs.500/- for revaluation of answer book per subject. In the event of the revaluation of answer books resulting in an increase beyond 10% of the original marks, the entire fee shall be refunded. The University shall otherwise be entitled to appropriate the entire fee.

¶28

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

We place on record our appreciation for the services rendered by the learned amicus curiae Mr. Rafiq Dada, learned Senior Counsel.”

¶30

As is evident from the above order, the Court had provided the course of action which is required to be taken by the University in both the situations i.e. upon revaluation the marks increased of a particular candidate are more than 10% or less than 10% as the case may be. Thereafter, the University appears to have framed Rules on 17^th November

¶31

¶32

2004 stating it to be “ Rules and Procedure for supply of Photo/zerox copies of answer-books to the examinee/s and for redressal of grievance mechanism”.

¶33

It is stated on behalf of the University that these rules, though are in force and the University is trying to follow the same, but there are certain inbuilt difficulties in complying with the said orders in its true spirit and substance and they also result in some inordinate delays causing difficulties to the students. According to the learned Counsel, the University is reconsidering the amendment of these Rules or framing of other appropriate Rules which would deal with the revaluation system more effectively and expeditiously.

¶34

The matter is stated to be pending for consideration before the appropriate authority. The Petitioners submit that they have already made a representation to the Vice Chancellor. If they wish to make any further representation to the Vice Chancellor, they should do it within one week from today. In the event no such representation is made by the Petitioners or any other students, we expect the University and the competent authority concerned to expedite the matter and finalize the issue of revaluation and ensure that the results of revaluation are declared timely. We make it clear that we are neither commenting on the merits or otherwise of the order passed by the Division Bench dated as well as Rules

¶35

¶36

dated 17^th November 2004. The University is free to consider the amendment of the Rules as it deem fit and proper.

¶37

Both the questions involved in the present Public Interest Litigation i.e. effect of increase of marks by 10% or more upon revaluation as well as timely declaration of results of the students who take the examination/review examination are kept open.

¶38

We, therefore, dispose of this Public Interest Litigation without prejudice to the contentions raised before us today with a direction that the competent authority in the University shall expeditiously take decision in regard to the above matter and we do hope that the result of the revaluation will be declared before the commencement of the ensuing examination.

¶39

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Gauraj H Shah and 15 Ors. v. University of Mumbai and 1 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gauraj H Shah and 15 Ors. v. University of Mumbai and 1 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Shivmurat Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and 9 Others

Aditya Rajan Shirodkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mehul v. Vyas Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Krantikari Jaihind Sena Vs the Maharashtra Development Corporation and 5 Ors.

Shailendra E. Kamble Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Reji Abraham Vs the State of Maharashtra through Revenue Minister and Ors.

Moreshwar Vinayak Ghaisas Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shrikant Rajendra Tiwari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Jonko Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Gangubai N. Suram Vs Madhukar Shankar Kumar and 5 Ors.

Vinodkumar Baldevsingh Saigal Vs Nargis Majid Oomerbhoy and Anr.

Sea Star Habitat Private Limited and Anr. Vs Jean Vinay Kalgutkar and Ors.

Anilkumar Devappa Ayare Vs Idbi Bank Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Dr. Allwyn Placidus Mascarenhas and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.