Petitioner sought mandamus to compel university to award rank, prizes, medals, scholarships and benefits for topping LL.B. examinations despite initial failure in one paper. Court disposed petition with direction to issue special certificate of merit within a week.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.2484 OF 1996
Sehira Ebrahim of Bombay.... Petitioner
Vs.
University of Mumbai & Ors..... Respondents
Shri Y.V. Divekar i/b Divekar & Co.
for the Petitioner.
Shri R.A. Rodrigues for Respondent
No.1.
Shri Shrivardhan Deshpande i/b
Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for
Respondent No.3.
CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND
A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.
DATED: APRIL 28, 2010
P.C:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties.
2.The petitioner has filed this petition
challenging the validity of Ordinance 237-A(10)
as suffering from illegality and impropriety in
so far as it provides that the revised marks
obtained by candidates on re-valuation shall
not be taken into account for the purpose of
2
awarding scholarships, prizes, medals and any
other award and/or for determining the order
for merit and, therefore, it should be declared
illegal, null and void and be struck down by
this Court and by way of relief, the petitioner
seeks a writ of mandamus to respondent No.1 to
declare that the petitioner has secured the
highest number of marks in the Third LL.B.
Examinations amongst the successful candidates
in the examinations held in October, 1995 and
May, 1996 and to confer upon the petitioner the
rank, honour, certification, prizes, medals,
scholarships and benefits available to the
highest scorer of the said LL.B. Examinations.
3.The petitioner was required to file
this writ petition being aggrieved by the fact
that though she secured the highest number of
marks in the Third LL.B. Examinations held in
May, 1996, she was deprived of the same for the
reason that in one of the papers i.e., Civil
Procedure Code, the petitioner was initially
awarded only 29 marks and declared failed,
although the petitioner�s aggregate mark was
365, which was the highest aggregate than the
successful candidate who got the highest number
of mark in the Third LL.B. Examinations held in
May, 1996. It is only on re-valuation that the
3
petitioner was given 53 marks in Civil
Procedure Code paper but was not placed first
in the University and was deprived of the rank,
honour,certification,prizes,medals,
scholarships and benefits whatsoever which
otherwise she was entitled to. At the time
this petition was filed, this Court did not
grant any interim relief to the petitioner
which resulted in respondent No.3 being
declared eligible for the rank, honour,
certification, prizes, medals, scholarships and
benefits to which the candidate who topped in
the University in the said examinations was
entitled to. This Court thereafter found it
proper to admit the petition on 20-1-1997 and
now it has come up for final hearing.
4.In the course of the hearing, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that in case the petitioner is given
a certificate that she has passed the Third
LL.B. Examinations, held in May, 1996, with
First Class and has topped in the University,
then the petitioner�s grievance would stand
redressed and she would not insist for the
relief sought in the petition of conferring
upon her the rank, honour, certification,
prizes, medals, scholarships and benefits
4
available to the highest scorer of the said
LL.B. Examinations, which came to be awarded to
respondent No.3, for the reason that due to
passage of time the petitioner may not get any
benefit out of it but at least her merit
deserves to be recognised by the University.
5.The learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 thereafter consulted the
authorities of respondent No.1 and informed the
Court that respondent No.1-University is ready
to issue a special certificate to this effect
and accordingly the learned counsel has
tendered before us a draft certificate along
with the covering letter addressed to the
learned counsel by the Controller of
Examinations. The covering letter and the draft
certificate are taken on the record and marked
�X� collectively for identification. The
counsel for the parties have gone through the
special certificate and have expressed
satisfaction in the matter.
6.In view of the above, we would not like
to examine the challenge of the petitioner to
Clause (10) of Ordinance 237-A relating to re-
valuation, which was in existence at the
relevant time and which is now no more in
5
existence and since the respondent-University
has agreed to issue a special certificate in
favour of the petitioner recognising her merit,
we dispose of this petition with the direction
to the respondent-University to issue a special
certificate of merit as per the draft
certificate, incorporating therein the changes
suggested by the Court, in favour of the
petitioner within a week�s time. The petition
accordingly stands disposed of.
7.All concerned to act on the
authenticated copy of this order.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Ordinance 237-A(10) is illegal and improper in excluding revised marks from re-valuation from determining scholarships, prizes, medals, and merit rank.
Sehira Ebrahim of Bombay
University of Mumbai
J.N. PATEL
A.P. BHANGALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court