Dismissed

Sagar Pukhraj v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2016CW/1968/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the University's result methodology compliant with the Ordinance, refusing to aggregate marks across all three exam stages. However, the Court directed the University to allow the petitioner to fill forms and appear in the LL.B. Part-I exam for 2016.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear in LL.B. Part-I Examination 2016 by paying fees within ten days.

Sagar Pukhraj Vs State and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

: O R D E R :

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1968/2015

¶5

Sagar Pukhraj

¶6

vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶7

Date of Order :: 02^nd February, 2016 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶8

Ms. Deepika Vyas , for the petitioner. Mr. D.D. Chitlangi, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶9

BY THE COURT:

¶10

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent University to award marks for question 10 (b) in the paper of Legal and Constitutional History of India.

¶11

The petitioner was granted admission in LL.B. Part-I; in the result announced by the respondent University, the petitioner could not secure the marks as required in the aggregate and was granted supplementary; the petitioner also applied for revaluation of the answer-sheets pertaining to the main examination in few subjects; whereafter, the petitioner appeared in supplementary examinations in three out of four papers; the result of revaluation was declared on 10.12.2014, wherein, while in two papers the marks awarded to the petitioner increased, in two papers they were decreased; whereafter the result of supplementary examination was declared, wherein, the petitioner obtained certain marks, however, as despite applying the better performance marks in terms of Ordinance 157A(9)(iii), the petitioner was declared fail.

¶12

In the writ petition, two issues were raised; while the petitioner

¶13

¶14

claimed that if the better performance of all the three mark-sheets i.e. the main examination, supplementary examination and revaluation is taken, the petitioner would get 422 marks and after award of 9 grace marks and one mark in question 10(b), which it was alleged was not checked, the petitioner would pass the examination as the requirement is to get an aggregate of 432 marks; the other issue, as noticed, pertained to evaluation of question 10(b).

¶15

During pendency of the writ petition, by an interim order dated 18.03.2015 the respondent University was directed to evaluate the answer to question 10(b), as it appeared from the certified copy of the answer-sheet that said answer was not checked; pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the result of revaluation of question 10 (b) has been produced and the petitioner has been awarded two marks in the said question.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the table pertaining to the better performance qua the three mark-sheets submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be declared pass and the action of the respondents in this regard cannot be sustained; it is also submitted that during pendency of the writ petition under the directions of this Court, the petitioner has appeared in the LL.B. Part-II examination and has passed the same.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent University submitted that the language of the Ordinance is very clear, wherein, if the result of the revaluation is declared after appearance at the supplementary of main examination, in such a case the better performance may be taken into account if the candidate so wishes and it is not the better performance of the main, revaluation and supplementary, which is sought to be implemented by the petitioner against the express language; it is

¶18

¶19

submitted that based on the said Ordinance the University has prepared the result, wherein, the petitioner has failed; it is further submitted that as the petitioner has failed in the LL.B. Part-I examination, his appearing provisionally under the directions of this Court in LL.B. Part-II examination is of no consequence.

¶20

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶21

To appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, it would be appropriate to reproduce the table of assumed best performance marks, as produced by the petitioner alongwith the rejoinder, which is indicated as under:-

¶22

SUBJECT MARKS OBTAINED IN MAIN EXAM. MARKS OBTAINED IN RE- VALUATION MARKS OBTAINED IN SUPPLEMENT ARY 1. 5001-Contract-I 27 42 36	BEST PERFORMA NCE 42
2. 5002-Contract-II 43 -- --	43
3. 5003-Law of Torts & Motor Veh. Act. 37 36 15	37
4. 5004-Family Law Hindu Law 48 - -	48
5005-Family Law Mommd. Law 48 - -	48
6-5006-Constitutional Law of India 42 36 -	42
7-5007-Environment Law 48 - -	48
8-5008-Leg. & Const. 32 36 46	46
Hist of India.
9-5010-Pro. Eth. Lawyers Act & BB RE 68 - - Total	68 422

¶23

A perusal of the above table would reveal that petitioner has sought to pick up the best marks out of the marks obtained in the main examination, revaluation and supplementary; the relevant provision in this regard is Ordinance 157A(9)(iii), which reads as

¶24

¶25

under:-

¶26

“(iii) The candidate who appears at the supplementary of main examination and also applies for revaluation in that / those paper(s) and if the result of revaluation is declared after appearance at the supplementary of main examination, in such a case the better performance may be taken into account if the candidate so wishes.”

¶27

A perusal of the above Ordinance reveals that the better performance has to be picked up from the marks obtained in revaluation and marks obtained at supplementary exam and not all the three examinations and that also in a case where the supplementary examination takes place before the result of revaluation is declared; the provisions of said Ordinance are not without logic as the revaluation is itself governed by Ordinance 157A and under the said Ordinance the marks obtained at revaluation, subject to the conditions as enumerated in 157A(5) to 9(ii)(c).

¶28

The hybrid system sought to be introduced by the petitioner for the purpose of some how reaching to the magic figure of 432 marks in aggregate by adding 9 grace marks and 2 marks obtained in question 10(b) has no sanction in the provisions, which governs the examination or any other law.

¶29

In view of the above, the action of the respondents by taking the better performance between the revaluation marks and the supplementary examination marks only cannot be faulted and, in view thereof, as the petitioner has failed to obtain the marks in aggregate, he is not entitled to any relief.

¶30

So far as the plea raised by counsel for the petitioner regarding petitioner having appeared in LL.B. Part-II examination is concerned, the very fact that the petitioner was permitted to appear provisionally in the said examination, cannot confer any right on the petitioner

¶31

¶32

based on his passing the said LL.B. Part-II examination without having pass the LL.B. Part-I examination.

¶33

A prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioner that respondent University may be directed to permit the petitioner to fill his examination form and appear in the LL.B. Part-I examination, 2016 as the last date for filling examination form is already over.

¶34

The said prayer appears to be fair in the circumstances of the case and, therefore, the University is directed to permit the petitioner to fill his examination form online/off-line/by way of hard copy for appearing in LL.B. Part-I Examination, 2016, if the petitioner appears and applies within a period of ten days and pays the requisite fees in this regard.

¶35

With the above observations and directions, no interference otherwise is called for in the present writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶36

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶37

A.K.Chouhan/- 138

Sagar Pukhraj v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Pukhraj v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yonus Bhai Vs Shahariyar and Ors.

Marudhar Kanwar Vs State and Ors.

Lrs of Late Sh. Sumer Mal Jain Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors.

Rajkumar Vs Narendra Kumar and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Vijay Pal Vs C.T.O.Dungarpur