Dismissed

Sri Ramesh K v. Karnataka State Law University

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2023WP/9661/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed three writ petitions filed by an LLB student seeking revaluation of examination papers and quashing of university orders. The court held that the petitioner was barred from further revaluation as papers were already valued twice. It also rejected the claim for semester promotion based on previous performance when the prior semester was missed, citing universit

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Ramesh K Vs Karnataka State Law University — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.9661 OF 2022 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.22662/2022 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.22691/2022 (EDN-RES)

¶7

IN WP NO.9661 OF 2022:

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI RAMESH K S/O LATE H.M.KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.679/1 9TH 'A' MAIN ROAD OLD SYNDICATE BANK ROAD INDIRA NAGAR 1ST STAGE INDIRA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 038.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

1 . KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR SUTAGATTI ROAD NAVANAGAR HUBLI KARNATAKA-580 025.

¶14

¶15

2 . PADMA LAW COLLEGE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL NO.11/3 2ND CROSS MAGADI MAIN ROAD RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU KARNATAKAA-560091.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR RI; NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 17.05.2022)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR NO.EXAM/KSLU/2021-22/47 DATED 12.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE EXTENT OF DENYING REVALUATION AND CHALLENGE REVALUATION IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND AND 4TH SEMESTERS EXAMINATIONS HELD DURING 07.03.2022 TO 18.03.2022 ETC.

¶20

IN WP. NO.22662/2022:

¶21

BETWEEN :

¶22

SRI RAMESH K S/O LATE H M KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT 679/1 9TH 'A' MAIN ROAD OLD SYNDICATE BANK ROAD INDIRA NAGAR 1ST STAGE INDIRA NAGAR BENGALURU 560 038

¶23

… PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE)

¶25

¶26

AND :

¶27

1 . KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR SUTAGATTI ROAD NAVANAGAR HUBLI KARNATAKA-580 025.

¶28

2 . PADMA LAW COLLEGE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL NO.11/3 2ND CROSS MAGADI MAIN ROAD RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU KARNATAKAA-560091.

¶29

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GIRISH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR RI; NOTICE TO R-2 SERVED) ---

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 01.10.2022 BEARING NO. KSLU/LEGAL CELL/2021-22 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY VIDE ANNX-T ETC.

¶31

IN WP NO.22691/2022:

¶32

BETWEEN :

¶33

SRI. RAMESH K S/O LATE H M KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT 679/1 9TH 'A' MAIN ROAD OLD SYNDICATE BANK ROAD INDIRA NAGAR 1ST STAGE INDIRA NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 038

¶34

… PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIKANTH M P., ADVOCATE)

¶35

¶36

AND :

¶37

1 . KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR SUTAGATTI ROAD NAVANAGAR HUBLI KARNATAKA-580 025.

¶38

2 . PADMA LAW COLLEGE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL NO.11/3 2ND CROSS MAGADI MAIN ROAD RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU KARNATAKAA-560091.

¶39

... RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI GIRISH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR RI; NOTICE TO R-2 SERVED)

¶41

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 07.10.22 BEARING NO. KSLU EXAM-202223-1224 BASED ON THE LEGAL OPINION DATED 05.10.2022 BEARING NO. KSLU/LEGAL CELL/2021-11 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY VIDE ANNEXURE-R AND S ETC.

¶43

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

Heard learned counsel - Sri M.P. Srikanth for the petitioner in all the matters; learned counsel - Smt. Saritha Kulkarni representing the 1^st respondent/University in W.P. No.9661/2022; and learned counsel - Sri Girish Kumar .R representing the 1^st respondent/University in Writ Petition Nos.22662/2022 and 22691/2022. Notice to Respondent No.2 is dispensed with vide Court order dated 17.5.2022 in all the matters.

¶47

In these three writ petitions, petitioner as well as

¶48

respondents are common. Petitioner is seeking to quash the Endorsements dated 1.10.2022, 7.10.2022 and 12.4.2022 issued

¶49

by the 1^st respondent/University in W.P. Nos.22662/2022, 22691/2022 and 9661/2022 respectively. The petitioner has also sought for re-valuation of the Subject Paper of Company Law of 5^th Semester 3 years LLB course; to redo the declaration of marks of the Second Semester of 3 years LLB course; to revalue

¶50

the answer script of the petitioner in respect of the Public International Law subject of 4^th Semester 3 years LLB Course; and also permit the challenge valuation of the concerned papers in accordance with the Examination Regulations of the 1^st respondent University (for short, 'University').

¶51

¶52

Petitioner is a student of three years LLB Course and pursuing his LLB course from the 2^nd respondent/college viz., Padma Law College (for short, 'College'), Sunkadakatte, Bangalore, which is affiliated to 1^st respondent University. Petitioner joined the Law Course of 3 years LLB during the year 2019-20. However, he could not write the examination held during December-2019 due to medical reasons and he appeared for the 1^st and 3^rd Semester examinations held during March and April-2021. When the results were declared, the petitioner passed only in one paper viz., Contract-I where he secured the aggregate marks of 53. However, with respect to subject of Criminal Law – I : Indian Penal Code paper, it was mentioned as T.B.A.L (to be announced later). Thereafter, the University issued another statement of marks, wherein it was declared that the petitioner had passed Criminal Law- I : Indian Penal Code Paper by securing aggregate marks of 50. Petitioner applied for revaluation, in which it was declared that in Family Law-I Hindu Law paper, he secured aggregate marks of 48.

¶53

In view of the Covid-19 Global Pandemic, the examination of even Semester i.e., 2^nd Semester of 3 years course was dispensed. However, as per the statement of marks

¶54

¶55

issued to the petitioner, he has passed only in one paper i.e, Property Law, but with regard to other papers he was declared as failed.

¶56

Petitioner had taken the 3^rd Semester examination along with 1^st Semester examination of December 2020, wherein he failed in all the papers. This being the state of affairs, the petitioner made a representation dated 6.11.2021 to the University that he is required to be passed in the 2^nd Semester examination in view of the fact that he has cleared three subjects in the 1^st Semester Examination. Another representation dated 8.11.2021 was submitted by the petitioner to the Principal of the 2^nd respondent College.

¶57

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in W.P. No.15571/2021 this Court by order dated 16.9.2021 while considering the case of Ritvik Bala Nagaraja B -vs- Bar Council of India and others (W.P. No.14389/2020 and connected matters dated 8.2.2021) held that there is no room for the University to deliberate once again upon what was directed by this Court and that it does not matter whether a student, who has failed in the previous Semester should be

¶58

¶59

declared as passed in view of the 50-50 formula adopted by this Court. Hence the petitioner preferred W.P. No.22206/2021 seeking consideration of his representation dated 8.11.2021 and also for a direction to redo the declaration of results of the petitioner. The said writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent/University to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 8.11.2021 on or before 6.10.2022 and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to make additional representation to the University, which shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶60

Pursuant to the disposal of the above stated writ petition, petitioner made another representation on 29.9.2022 contending that in respect of one student Narasimhamurthy .A from the same college though he was absent in the First Semester, in consonance with the 50-50 formula, it was shown that he has passed Second Semester Examination. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner also has passed in accordance with the 50-50 formula. So also in similar situation one student by name Stephen .M also from the very same college had passed only in three papers of the 1^st Semester, but he was declared to have been passed in all subjects of the 2^nd Semester. Therefore,

¶61

¶62

learned counsel contends that there has been erratic valuation and declaration of results by the University.

¶63

Similarly in W.P. No.22662/2022, representations were made by the petitioner and the same having not been considered, he preferred W.P. No.18881/2022 to consider his representation made for revaluation of the paper of Company Law (5^th Semester) III Year LLB course. The said writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to consider the said representations in accordance with law. In pursuance to the said order, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The facility of applying for revaluation has been denied on the ground that he has availed the option of challenge valuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the revaluation/challenge valuation is not permitted in respect of the subject examination and the same is in violation of the Ordinance governing the process of re-totaling, revaluation and issuing photocopy of answer scripts and challenge valuation as per section 48(1)(d) & (e) of the K.S.L.U. Act, 2009.

¶64

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been erratic valuation on the part of the University

¶65

10 -

¶66

and hence he has sought for further re-evaluation of Company Law Paper of 5^th Semester 3 years LLB Course. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that after securing the answer scripts, he got them valuated from Law Teachers of different Law Colleges, who agreed in unanimity that the petitioner ought to have secured more than 40 marks in the Company Law Paper and accordingly he ought to have been declared as passed. So also in other subjects, where the petitioner was shown to have failed, the teachers who evaluated the papers obtained by the petitioner by way of RTI, opined that petitioner deserves more score and he ought to have passed. But, however the marks provided by the University is totally contrary to the regulations and the judgment pronounced by this Court. Therefore, he contends that the act of the University is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be quashed as it is unjustifiable. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the Endorsement has been issued in a mechanical manner with an intention to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate rights.

¶67

It is further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of the additional rejoinder, the petitioner has sought for directing the University to conduct challenge

¶68

11 -

¶69

revaluation of the answer script of Public International Law of 4^th Semester 3 years LLB Course by an independent team of Valuators under the supervision of this Court.

¶70

By virtue of the interim order dated 28.9.2022, this Court directed the University to conduct revaluation of the 4^th Semester examination taken by the petitioner and to announce the results. The petitioner obtained 27 marks in revaluation in the Public International Law subject of 4^th Semester examination. Under the circumstances, the petitioner marks came to be enhanced from 17 to 27, which is more than 5%, but less than 15%. He also contends that in addition to the marks obtained, petitioner should be given benefit of Clause 1.3.6(b) of the Ordinance. Therefore, the petitioner would get additional 4 marks and after providing him the grace marks of 2, he would get 33 marks and accordingly, he will pass in the said subject.

¶71

It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that alternatively the petitioner has the option of applying for challenge valuation, in addition to the revaluation conducted by the University in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court. It is in this regard, the petitioner made

¶72

12 -

¶73

representations to the University for consideration. Having not done so, the impugned Endorsement issued by the University is without application of mind, perverse, arbitrary and the same requires to be quashed. Hence the petitioner left with no other alternative remedy is before this Court questioning the said Endorsement

¶74

Per contra, learned counsel - Smt. Saritha Kulakarni representing the University in W.P. No.9661/2022 vehemently contended that the petition is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed as the Endorsement issued by the University is in accordance with the regulations, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and infact following the guidelines issued by this Court, the revaluation was conducted and opportunity was provided to the petitioner to appear in the examination and however since the petitioner did not appear in the examination, he cannot be provided a blanket opportunity of appearance to his whims and fancies.

¶75

Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is undergoing 3 years LLB course and as per the University Regulation-14, he is permitted to complete the entire course

¶76

13 -

¶77

within six years from the date of his admission to the course. She also contends that the petitioner’s answer script is revalued twice and hence he cannot avail the same again as per Clause 1.3 of the Ordinance. She further contends that since the period is already spent, the writ petition has become infructuous and would not survive for consideration.

¶78

Learned counsel further contends that as per the directions of this Court, the University revalued the petitioner's Public International Law answer script, wherein the petitioner scored 27 marks. She further contends that as per Clause 1.3 of the Ordinance, petitioner would not be entitled to revaluation to papers, dissertations, practicals etc., which are valued by more than one Examiner. She further contends that petitioner cannot claim challenge valuation provision for his June 2021 examination for the reason that his answer scripts are already valued twice.

¶79

It is further contention of learned counsel for the University that 50-50 formula for even Semester examination of June 2020 was adopted in view of the Covid 2019 Pandemic situation at that point of time and hence the valuation of even Semester examination of June 2020 was assessed based on the

¶80

14 -

¶81

previous performance of the students in the previous Semester. This scheme was adopted in pursuance to the orders in W.P. No. 14389/2020 and connected matters. The learned counsel also contends that if a student is absent in the previous Semester, then the previous performance shall be considered as zero as per guideline No.17. Admittedly, the petitioner had not attended the odd Semester examination conducted in December- 2020 due to medical reasons. With regard to two other students having not attended and being absent in the 1^st Semester were promoted to the next Semester, is misleading. Hence, on these grounds learned counsel seeks dismissal of the petition as the same is not tenable both on facts and law.

¶82

Sri Girish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the University in W.P. Nos.226921/2022 and 22662/2022 while reiterating the grounds urged in the statement of objections so also arguments advanced by Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, seeks for dismissal of the petition as devoid of any merit.

¶83

In Writ Petition No.9661/2022 the petitioner is questioning the denying of revaluation and challenge valuation in respect of the 2^nd and 4^th Semester examinations held during

¶84

15 -

¶85

7.3.2022 to 18.3.2022 and also seeking to revalue his answer script in respect of Public International Law Paper of the 4^th Semester 3 years LLB Course. In this context, it is relevant to extract the relevant provisions of the Ordinance governing the process of re-totaling, revaluation and issuing photocopy of answer scripts and challenge valuation as per Section 48(1)(d) & (e) of the K.S.L.U. Act, 2009.

¶86

Clause 1.1.A of the Ordinance deals with revaluation of answer scripts, which reads as under:

¶87

"A candidate may, by making an application in the prescribed form to the authority specified and after payment of the prescribed fees, seek revaluation of the answer scripts relating to his theory examinations."

¶88

Clause 1.3 of the Ordinance reads as under :

¶89

"Revaluation will not be applicable to papers, dissertations, Practicals, Project work etc., which are valued by more than one examiner."

¶90

Clause 2.1 of the Ordinance regarding 'challenge

¶91

valuation' reads asunder:

¶92

16 -

¶93

"In case, there is any complaint to Vice- Chancellor, made within 3 weeks from the date of declaration of results by any responsible persons/candidate to the effect that a student has been favored or disfavored by giving very high or low marks, the Vice-Chancellor may get it reviewed. The candidate has to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as processing fee per paper. In addition to this, the candidate has to deposit an amount of Rs.100/-. In case the charge is proved, only an amount of Rs.1,000/- will be returned and if the charge is not proved, the deposit amount will be forfeited to the University. For determining the marks obtained by the candidate at the Challenge Valuation, if the marks awarded in the Challenge Valuation are less than the original award, then the original marks be retained and if marks awarded in the Challenge Valuation, are more than the original award but less than 20% of the maximum marks for the paper/subject when compared to earlier awarded marks, the marks obtained at the Challenge Valuation be awarded. In case, the difference between the original award and challenge Valuation are more than 20% of the maximum marks of the paper/subject, the paper be sent to another examiner for valuation after fresh code number is put on such papers, the candidate be awarded average of the best two marks awarded."

¶94

In view of the above, the case of the petitioner will

¶95

have to be considered in the light of the provisions of the Ordinance and other material placed on record. Petitioner

¶96

17 -

¶97

appeared for June 2021 examination conducted in March 2022 and scored 17 marks in Public International Law (passing marks - 32). Thereafter the petitioner did not appear for December 2021 examination conducted in May 2022. At this stage, it has to be stated that June-2021 exams were conducted as per the directions of the judgment in W.P. No.100869/2022 dated 5^th March 2022 passed by the Dharwad bench of High Court of Karnataka. The action of not providing revaluation opportunity was challenged in the said writ petition by way of an interim application. The said application came to be decided on 22.4.2022 with a direction that for the future examination to be held on 16^th May 2022 and thereafter, students would be eligible for revaluation as per the applicable rules of that examination. Thereafter in consonance with the interim order, University issued a Notification dated 30.6.2022 for revaluation and challenge valuation as per Annexure-R3.

¶98

In consonance with the directions of this Court, the University revalued the petitioner's Public International Law answer script and on revaluation, petitioner scored 27 marks. Therefore, as stated earlier as per Clause 1.3 of the Ordinance, there is no scope for revaluation to those students whose papers

¶99

18 -

¶100

have been valued by more than one Examiner. Further, the petitioner also cannot claim challenge valuation provision for his June-2021 exams, in view of the provisions stated hereinabove as his answer scripts have already been valued twice. Therefore, the question of challenge valuation to be considered for petitioner would not arise. Since the petitioner's answer scripts were valued twice, the petitioner is barred under Clause 1.3 of the Ordinance to claim revaluation or challenge valuation. Under the above said circumstances, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief in W.P. No.9661/2022.

¶101

In W.P. No.22691/2022, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the Endorsement dated 7.10.2022 and to direct the University to redo the declaration of marks of the 2^nd Semester 3 years LLB course by considering the marks obtained in revaluation and subsequent declaration of marks in respect of subject papers - Family Law-I/Hindu Law and Criminal Law-I (Indian Penal Code) of the First Semester 3 years LLB Course. At this stage, it is relevant to note that the University adopted 50-50 formula for valuation of even Semester examinations due to the unfortunate Covid-2019 Pandemic Global situation and valuation was assessed based on the previous performance of the

¶102

19 -

¶103

students in the previous Semester examination. This methodology was adopted in pursuance to orders passed in W.P.No.14389/2020 and connected matters decided on 8^th February 2021. Based on this, 50% of the marks from the previous performance of previous Semester was taken into consideration for assessment. As per the Guideline No.17 if the student is absent in the previous Semester, in such a case his performance will be considered as zero. Petitioner herein had not attended the odd Semester examination that was conducted in December-2020 due to medical reasons. Later, the petitioner appeared for the 1^st Semester examination in March-2021 and the petitioner had cleared 3 subjects out of 5. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that since he had not appeared in the odd semester examination that was conducted in December2020, the marks obtained in subsequent examination that was conducted in March 2021 is to be taken into consideration. However, this aspect is not contemplated in the Ordinance and no such thing emanating from the Ordinance to provide the relief as sought for, for having been absent in the previous Semester. So also in W.P. No.14389/2020 dated 8.2.2021, there is no such thing contemplated for considering the subsequent Semester

¶104

20 -

¶105

marks in the aid of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, since the petitioner has not taken the previous Semester examination and was absent, he cannot be provided the relief on the basis of the performance in the repeat examination, which is not contemplated in the Ordinance of the University. Hence, in W.P. No.22691/2022, the petitioner would not be entitled for a favourable order. As stated earlier, Guideline - 17 contemplates if the student is absent in the previous Semester, in such case his performance will be considered as zero.

¶106

In W.P. No.22662/2022, it is the case of the petitioner that the Endorsement dated 1.10.2022 is bad in law and further he has sought for a direction to revaluate the subject paper of Company Law of 5th Semester 3 years LLB course through independent Valuators under the supervision of this Court. The petitioner had appeared for 5^th and 3^rd Semester papers, in the examination held in April/May/June-2022. The petitioner had scored 32 marks in the subject of Competition Law and 14 marks in Company Law, which was considered as fail. Petitioner had applied for challenge valuation of these papers, pursuant to which the petitioner secured 39 marks in Competition Law and 28 marks in Company Law. In view of the fact that the petitioner

¶107

21 -

¶108

could not secure passing marks, he sought for revaluation of the failed subjects. Clause 1.3 of the Ordinance specifically states that revaluation will not be applicable to papers, dissertations, practicals, Project work etc., which are valued by more than one Examiner. Therefore, in view of the Company Law paper having been valued twice, the petitioner would not be entitled for further revaluation as no such thing is contemplated in the Ordinance which could permit the petitioner another chance more than what is provided in the Ordinance under Clause 1.3. Under the circumstances, petitioner would not be entitled to a favourable order in W.P. No.22662/2022 also.

¶109

In cases of education/examination, it is the domain of Legislature to make laws, enact statutes, regulations and ordinances. Expert bodies are constituted to deliberate all eventualities taking into consideration all issues of the colleges, difficulties of the students and the overall welfare and well-being of the society at large. It is not for the Courts to enact laws or make regulations, it should be left to the expert bodies to do their job, in which they hold expertise. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another -vsParitosh

¶110

22 -

¶111

Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others reported in (1984) 4 SCC

¶112

27, has held at paragraph-16 as under:

¶113

16. xxx xxx The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present case and hence there was no scope at

¶114

23 -

¶115

all for the High Court to invalidate the provision contained in clause (3) of Regulation 104 as ultra vires on the grounds of its being in excess of the regulation-making power conferred on the Board. xxx xxx"

¶116