Sri Srikanth B S Vs the Registrar (Evaluation)

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1833 WP No. 21496 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.21496 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SRIKANTH B.S. S/O. SRI B.T. SRIDHAR BABU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.18/19 “SRIDHARA NIVASA”, SAI VILLA LAYOUT, AMRUTHAHALLI, SAHAKARANAGAR (P) BENGALURU – 560 092. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SRINIVAS GOWDA R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHOWDAREDDY T.M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION), BENGALURU UNIVERSITY, EXAMINATION DIVISION, GNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS, BENGALURU – 560 056.

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL ACHARYA INSTITUTE OF GRADUATE STUDIES, ACHARYA DR. SARVEPALLI, RADHAKRISHNA ROAD, SOLADEVANAHALLI, ACHARYA P O BENGALURU – 560 107. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI SIDDHARTH PADMARAJ DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI NANDEESH C.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 06.07.2024 IN NO.PA.VI-IVB/ANKAPATTI/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE R-1 BENGALURU UNIVERSITY BENGALURU A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R-1

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:1833 WP No. 21496 of 2024

¶18

TO CORRECT THE MARKS AS CLAIMED IN LETTER DATED 17.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-2 A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is seeking to quash the letter dated 06.07.2024 issued by respondent No.1-Bangalore University at Annexure-L and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to correct the marks as claimed in the letter dated 17.04.2024 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-K.

¶22

Brief facts that led to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner enrolled in the BCA course at Acharya Institute of Graduate Studies. Respondent No.2 completed the BCA course in August 2021. The petitioner passed the I Semester with one subject “Problem Solving Techniques Using C” in June-July 2021 with 22 marks in the internal assessment and the provision result declared showed “clear in that subject”, the same can be

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1833 WP No. 21496 of 2024

¶24

found place at Annexure-P of the writ petition. The petitioner later on appeared for the Karnataka Examination

¶25

Authority’s, Post Graduate Common Entrance Test (PGCET) for MBA admission, the petitioner completed his MBA in digital marketing and was awarded MBA certificate. The petitioner was issued a study certificate by the Acharya Institute on 27.12.2021. However, the I and the VI semester marks card were not issued despite several requests and the petitioner made a representation to the institute for the I and VI semester marks card. It was at that time, the petitioner found that the internal assessment marks for the subject “Problem Solving Techniques Using C” were entered incorrectly as ‘12’ instead of ‘22’, which the petitioner had originally secured. This being the fact the respondent No.2-college sought to correct the mistake by writing a letter to respondent No.1 – Bangalore University on 07.04.2024. The respondent No.1 issued an endorsement / letter refusing to correct the internal assessment marks on the ground that once the internal marks was submitted in the year 2017, no

¶26

4 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:1833 WP No. 21496 of 2024

¶28

changes could be made, which finds place at Annexure-L. The petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the Bangalore University is before this court.

¶29

Statement of facts have been filed by respondent No.2-college stating and admitting that the petitioner had secured 22 marks out of 30 marks in the internal assessment in the I semester of BCA for the subject i.e., “Problem Solving Techniques Using C” by the respondent No.2-College and in respect of the internals conducted by the respondent No.1-University, petitioner had scored 25 marks out of 70 marks, thereby securing a total of 47 marks out of 100 marks in the said subject. It is stated that the petitioner completed the BCA course during the month August 2021 with II Class and the petitioner approached respondent No.2 seeking issuance of original marks card of the I and VI semester stating that the petitioner needs the original marks card for the purpose of securing MBA seat with another institution. In the meantime, to facilitate the procedure for

¶30

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1833 WP No. 21496 of 2024

¶31

securing the MBA seat, this respondent issued a provisional degree certificate and a study certificate dated 27.12.2021 to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner approached the college for the original marks card and degree certificate. It is at that time, the respondent informed the petitioner that the same has not received by the college and necessary enquiry was done with respondent No.1-University seeking clarification on the dispatch of the pending marks card of the students including that of the petitioner. At that time, it was informed by the University that the petitioner had failed in one of the subject’s of the I Semester i.e., “Problem Solving Techniques Using C” and the University cannot issue the marks card. It was at that time, the college noticed that at the time of preparing the list of internal marks obtained by the students, due to technical mishap / typographical error in respect of the petitioner, the internal assessment marks for the said subject was wrongly entered as ‘12’ instead of ‘22’, which made respondent No.2 to write a letter to the University stating

¶32

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1833 WP No. 21496 of 2024

¶33

that an error was committed on the part of the respondent No.2, in which the uploading of internal assessment marks was ‘12’ instead of ‘22’ and sought for necessary corrections. It is specifically stated by respondent No.2 that the said mistake is on the part of the college and it is a typographical error committed at the time of uploading the final list.

¶34

Respondent No.1 filed statement of objections inter alia contending that there is a delay in approaching the court and the petition needs to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the petitioner has not cleared the BCA semester I exam “Problem Solving Techniques Using C” and the petitioner is having shortage of 3 marks for the required minimum passing marks of 40 and he has failed in the said exam and accordingly, his degree certificate is not issued by respondent No.1-University. It is further stated that there is no provision under the Examination Ordinance, 2011 approved by the Chancellor that under no circumstances the marks sent after the declaration of the results shall be

¶35

7 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:1833 WP No. 21496 of 2024

¶37

accepted and it is on that ground the letter seeking for correction of the marks of the petitioner was rejected.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been denied of a fair opportunity as the correction of the internal marks was not due to the fault of the petitioner but due to the fault on the part of respondent No.2 itself and the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same. It is stated that the respondents are borne by their administrative duties to correct the factual errors and provide accurate marks to the petitioner. Taking this court through the provisional marks card issued by respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner was awarded internal assessment marks score of ‘22’ as against ‘12’, which was sent by the respondent to the University, which is nothing but a typographical error and the error caused is by the college and the respondent No.1 was under the duty to correct the same.

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 takes the

¶40

similar stand as taken by him in his statement of facts

¶41

8 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:1833 WP No. 21496 of 2024

¶43

stating that the sending of score for the internal assessment was due to typographical error and the petitioner is rightly entitled for ‘22’ marks as held in the provisional marks card.

¶44

Respondent No.1-University justifying the endorsement issued by respondent No.1 submits that there is no provision in the Ordinance to make any such rectification even if it is a technical mishap or a technical error.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the question that falls for consideration is:

¶46

“whether necessary direction to respondent No.1 needs to be accorded in the present facts and circumstances of this case?”

¶47

The petitioner is seeking direction to the

¶48

University – respondent No.1 to correct the error in the internal assessment marks as per the representation made by the college. The Regulation governing the choice based credit system (semester scheme in under graduate and

¶49

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1833 WP No. 21496 of 2024

¶50

integrated master’s degree programs to the faculties of arts, science and commerce) issued by the Bangalore University at clause 10.7, which reads as under:

¶51

“The internal assessment marks shall be published on the notice board of the department / college for information of the students”.

¶52

(Emphasis supplied)

¶53

The Examination Ordinance, 2011 point No.17

¶54

and 18 read as under:

¶55

17 . Not sending the sessional / term work / project work / internal assessment marks/grading before the commencement of theory examination – Impose penalty of Rs.10,000/- per student on college.

¶56

18 . In case marks are sent after commencement of theory examination and before announcement of results – impose penalty of rs.25,000/- per student on college.

¶57

Neither the Regulations nor the Examination Ordinance, 2001 state about there being any prohibition

¶58

for any correction of the typographical or clerical errors in the internal assessment marks or any marks which has

¶59

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1833 WP No. 21496 of 2024

¶60

been due to the error and which has been acknowledged by the college.

¶61

The refusal of the Bangalore University – respondent No.1 to correct the internal marks is based on a rigid and outdated interpretation of the examination without considering that the respondent No.2-College has categorically stated that there is a mistake, error, mishap and typographical error on part of the college. The internal mark was mistakenly recorded and this clerical error on part of the college cannot make the petitioner to be liable and penalize the petitioner especially when the college of the petitioner has acknowledged for correct of marks. The provisional list clearly shows that the petitioner – student secured ‘22’ marks sufficient to pass the exam. The mistake of sending the marks of the petitioner as score 12 by the college is a mistake on their part. Due to the error committed by the college, the students result reflects in failure in I Semester BCA, which has a broader academic and career implication. The University’s denial to correct

¶62

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1833 WP No. 21496 of 2024

¶63

the marks on the basis of “no provision for correction” is totally unjustified. The error being not on part of the student and correcting the marks enures fairness. The courts time and again have taken a sympathetic view in the matters affecting the students’ career. In the said circumstances and for the reasons, the point framed for

¶64

consideration is answered and this court pass the following:

¶65

O R D E R

¶66

(i) The writ petition is allowed . (ii) The impugned endorsement issued at Annexure-L is set aside.

¶67

(iii) The respondent No.1 is directed to correct the marks as per the letter submitted by the college at Annexure-K and issue the marks card of I and VI Semester BCA forthwith.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶70

SS

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sri Srikanth B S v. the Registrar (Evaluation)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srikanth B S v. the Registrar (Evaluation)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kasaba Primay Agriculture Credit Co. Operative Society Limited Vs the Assistnat Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Gowrishankar. S Vs Karnataka State Law University

Sri.v.N. Channakrishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Narayanachar H T Vs the State of Karnataka

Seshappa Gowda P B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Dinesh Achar Vs the State of Karnataka