Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs The State Of Maharashtra
| Date of Judgment | 23 September, 2008 |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Case type | Civil case |
| Appellant | Sonali Govind Badhe, |
| Respondent | The State of Maharashtra |
| Bench | F.I. Rebello, K.U. Chandiwal |
| Referred | Ajay Prakash Ambagade vs University of Pune , vice …on 29 August , 2006 |
Facts of the case:-
The petitioner passed the B.Sc examination in the year 1999-2000 and took admission to M.Sc. Course in the year 1999-2000. According to the petitioner, she has successfully completed her M.Sc. Part-1 in the year 2006- 2007. Thereafter, she was admitted for M.Sc. Part-II. The petitioner was doing M.Sc. in Analytical Chemistry. The petitioner appeared for M.Sc. examination held in
November 2007. According to the petitioner, allocation of marks of the said examination is as follows for all papers.
Internal marks. : 20
External marks. : 80.
Thus the grand total of 100, is divide in the ratio of 20:80
The M.Sc. Course of the University consists of four semesters. The petitioner has completed successfully the Ist semester and
obtained 289 marks out of 500. In the 2nd semester, the result of the petitioner is not declared / passed because of less marks obtained in the subject Physical Chemistry . The petitioner obtained 327 marks out of 500 in 3rd semester. The petitioner obtained 361 marks out of 500 in the 4th semester. Due to a backlog in the 2nd semester, the result declared on 12-01-2008 shows that she has failed. Passing the subject is of 40 marks out of 100. To pass the University Examination (UEX), the minimum passing is 32 out of 80.
The statement of marks for the 2nd semester shows that in the subject Physical Chemistry – II petitioner has obtained 18 marks out of 20 as internal marks and obtained 23 marks out of 80 in UEX. She has thus obtained 41 marks out of 100.
Even though passing is of 40 marks, she has been declared marks but obtained 23 marks in UEX. The
the petitioner applied for verification of marks. The Controller of the Examination, by communication dated 24-03-2008, informed the petitioner that, on verification of answer books, it has been found that marks have been correctly totalled and there is no mistake. The petitioner applied for photo copies of answer book, which was given to the petitioner on 03-04-2008.
Question No. 4(a) (iv) and 4 (b). In view of that, the petitioner had made an application dated 07-04-2008 before respondent No.2, describing the entire situation.
The respondent – University has framed Ordinances and which are described as Uniform Ordinances relating to the examinations.
Under the Ordinance 1 – the grace marks for passing in each head is set out. It is further set out, the benefit of such gracing marks given in different heads of passing shall not exceed 1% of the aggregate marks in that
examination.
Ordinance – 2 pertains to the grace marks for getting higher class, with which we are not concerned.
Ordinance – 3 relates to grace marks for getting distinction in the subject only.
Ordinance 4. Condonation. If a candidate fails in only one head of passing, having passed in all other heads of passing, his/her deficiency of marks in such head of passing may be condoned by not more than 1% of the aggregate marks of the examination or 10% of the total
number of marks of that head of passing in which he/she is failing, whichever is less. However condonation, whether in one head of passing or aggregate head of passing be restricted to maximum up to 10 marks only.
Condonation of deficiency of marks be shown in the Statement of Marks in the form of asterisk and Ordinance number.
Provided that this condonation of marks is concurrent with the rules and guidelines of professional statutory bodies at the All India level such as AICTE, MCI, Bar Council, CCIM, CCIII, NCTE etc.”
Issues:-
The issue, however, required to be dealt with is whether the petitioner is entitled to grace marks in terms of Ordinance – 4 as is sought to be interpreted by the petitioner and she be declared to have passed the examination
Arguments :-
Arguments by the petitioner:-
According to the petitioner, she scrutinized the paper and on scrutiny, she found that she has not been correctly assessed insofar as Question No. 4(a)
The petitioner contends that as per rules of the University, she is entitled to condonation of 10% of marks, and therefore, if the petitioner is given grace marks then she will get benefit of 10 grace marks, by which her marks in UEX will be 33 and she has to be declared to have passed the examination.
In the course of the proceedings, the relief which the petitioner sought amendment and prayed for, is the following relief.
. ” By issuing writ of mandamus or any writ of alike nature or direction the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to grant grace marks of 10 as per Ordinance – 4 (Condonation) of University Ordinance relating to examinations ( w.e.f. 2001-2002) of North Maharashtra University,
Jalgaon and further be directed to declare the result and the corrected mark memo be issued forthwith
Arguments by the respondent:-
Though the respondents have been served, they have not filed reply, but have argued the matter based on the Statutes of the University and interpretation thereof.
The learned counsel submits that 10% of the total number of marks of the head of passing would be in that subject and if it is so considered at the highest, the petitioner would be eligible for 8 marks which would make the petitioner 31 marks. So calculated, the petitioner would be getting 31 marks whereas the minimum required is 32 marks.
On the other hand, on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel submits that Ordinance correctly read would show that what has to be counted is either aggregate marks of the examination or 10% of the total marks of the head of passing. The expression ‘total number of marks of the head of passing’ must be read as ejusdem generis with aggregate marks of the examination.
So read, the head of passing is not limited to the subject but to the head of passing. In the instant case, head of passing would be UEX. The maximum marks are 1600 and 10% would be 16 marks.
But considering the Ordinance, maximum number of marks to be given is 10. The petitioner therefore is entitled to 10 marks which would make a total of 33 marks. As the minimum required is 32 marks, the petitioner is therefore, entitled to be declared as passed.
Judgement:-
The interpretation sought to be given by the petitioner must be accepted and the expression ‘ head of passing’ must be considered against total marks which are to be allotted under the head UEX.
The petitioner is entitled to 10 grace marks in terms of Ordinance – 4 of the Ordinances of the University and consequent to, the respondents are directed to add 10 marks to the petitioner’s total in Physical Chemistry – II and declare the result of the petitioner.
Reference:-
This article is written by Sanjana Tomar of Amity Law College , Gwalior, intern vidhiya
