unmerited and misconceived. The degree/graduation certificate produced before the Court - of course consequent upon the declaration of the revaluation furnished - unambiguously records that the petitioner was successful in the May, 2013 B.Tech examination. The graduation degree is in fact premised on that basis. That the petitioner was initially declared failed in 2013, in the opinion of the Court, should not obscure the circumstance that the revaluation was not preceded by a separate examination. Had such being the case, the respondents’ position would have been feasible and merited. However, the fact remains that the petitioner merely applied for revaluation soon after the declaration of results in September, 2013. The University took its own time in completing the revaluation and declared the revised result (of the original examination held in May, 2013). This resulted in the enhancement of the marks in the concerned paper and, therefore passing of the same. Accepting the respondents’ submissions in the opinion of the Court would lead to perversity if not completely defeating the ends of justice. It is not as if the petitioner withheld any information in stating that his re-valued result was in respect of the original examination of May, 2013. His argument is sound and substantiated by the degree certificate issued by the University. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner had completed graduation and was a B.Tech degree holder as on 01.01.2014 and consequently eligible to be considered for selection and appointment.
