Basant Mertia and Pushkar Dilip Sawant vs The University of Pune and Others

Rule. Mr. Girish Kulkarni, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr.A.V. Anturkar, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.5. Mr.P.I. Khemani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.6.

In the facts and circumstances, the matters are taken up for final hearing today.

The petitioners, in both the petitions, have approached this Court by filing the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing and setting aside an order dated May 22, 2003 passed by the University of Pune, respondent No.1 herein, by which, the petitioners were declared ineligible and by directing them to declare the result of the petitioners for examination of Part-I, S.E. (Civil), and to permit them to appear in Part-II examination.

The case of both the petitioners is that they had undergone the course in S.E. Part-I and appeared in the examination in December, 2002. Unfortunately, however, their results were not declared. They, therefore, have approached this Court by filing these petitions. Interim relief was not granted in their favour and the respondent- University has not declared their results.

Several contentions have been raised at the time of hearing of the petitions. Mainly it was urged that both the petitioners were eligible to appear at the examination. Unfortunately, their results were not declared since, according to the University, they were not eligible to appear.

Now, in this connection, our attention was invited by the learned counsel that the petitioners had obtained 12 marks in "Testing of materials" (Exhibit-I to the affidavit in reply, page 41). It is, however, the case of the petitioners that there was an error on the part of the College in calculating marks and putting the figure in the mark sheet .It was submitted that the marks which were to be given was on the basis of 50 marks (maximum). Unfortunately, however, due to mistake on the part of the examiner of the College, maximum marks were considered as 25 and on that basis, 12 marks were given to them. Now, if maximum marks are 50 and not 25, the result would be that instead of 12 marks, both the petitioners would get 24 marks. The mistake was corrected. Letters were also written by the college authorities to the University clarifying the above error and mistake but the University did not accept it stating therein that nothing could be done in the matter. After the marks were received by the University, since no remedial action was taken and now a communication was sent by the University treating the petitioners as ineligible, they have approached this Court.

It may also be stated at this stage that apart from the stand taken by the College vide its letters dated 10th March, 2003 and 24th April, 2003, both the examiners had also addressed a letter, dated 10th March, 2003 to the Controller of examination of the first respondent University in which it was stated as under:-

"After the names of above mentioned students were out of the defaulters list, minimum marks were given to them. Unfortunately by mistake at that time, considering maximum marks as 25, these marks were given as 12. Actually the marks should have been 24 out of 50.

Actually the terms of these students have been granted. But the error on our part has caused their failure in the term work leading to loss of one year. The error on our part is due to over sight and not deliberate. In the interest of the students career, it is therefore requested that their marks may kindly be changed to 24/50."

In view of the above letters, in our opinion, it would be appropriate, if the University is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, keeping in view the letters addressed by the University as well as by the Examiners.

It is, no doubt, contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-University that both the petitioners were not eligible and the action of the University is lawful. It was also submitted that they had not completed "satisfactory term work".

In our opinion, it would be appropriate, if the University would reconsider the matter, taking into account the letters written by the University as well as by the Examiners.

The contentions raised on behalf of the University that in such matters, Courts should not interfere as held by the Supreme Court in Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, , cannot be upheld. The said decision would not apply to the facts of the case. If there is an error on the part of the college authorities and it was specifically communicated to the University, alongwith the letter by examiners, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice, if the University reconsiders the prayer of the petitioners and college authorities. But the prayer of the petitioners that final direction may be granted cannot be accepted as,in our opinion, the University has to consider all the facts and circumstances. At that time the University will also consider as to whether the students would be eligible to get benefit of Rule 4 of the Rules and Regulations for B.E. Degree course under the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Pune. It would also consider about the fees paid by the petitioners. Let such a decision be taken as expeditiously as possible preferably within three weeks.

Rule made absolute accordingly to the above extent. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

If the contentions of the petitioners are upheld, subsequent action will be taken by the University on that basis. If it is against the petitioners, it is open to the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and disposal of this petition will not come in their way. Parties be given copies of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar/Private Secretary.