Miss Nandita Narain vs University of Delhi and Others

B.N. Kirpal, J.—The petitioner, who secured the highest percentage of marks in M.A. (Mathematics) examination conducted by the University of Delhi in 1981, is seeking to challenge the action of the University of Delhi and the Controller of Examinations (respondents 1 and 2) of proposing to award medals and prizes to respondents 3 to 5, who have obtained lesser percentage of marks than the petitioner. The petitioner had passed her B.A. (Hons.) examination in Mathematics in 1979. She completed her examination within a minimum span of period prescribed by the University and in view of her high percentage of marks she was declared qualified for the award of "Shrimati Ravikanta Devi Prize" for 1979. At that time the petitioner was a student of St. Stephen''s College, Delhi and, in accordance with the rules, she had repeated Part I examination along with Part II examination, possibly with a view to improve her marks.

The petitioner then joined M.A. (Mathematics) in St. Stephen''s College in 1979. It is not disputed that the regular course of study prescribed for M.A. (Maths) is of two academic years. During these two academic years, four semester examinations are conducted. The rules framed by the University, relating to M.A. examinations, contemplate candidates wishing to reappear in certain papers. The relevant rule in this behalf is R. 9(1), which reads as under:-

9(i) (a). A candidate who appears or fails to appear at the first semester examination may be allowed to appear/reappear in one or more courses of the first semester either along with the examination in the courses of the second semester at the end of the first year or subject to provisions of clause 8(b), along with the examination in the courses of the fourth semester at the end of the second year, on his foregoing the earlier performance in writing in the courses concerned in case he had previously appeared in the same.

(b) subject to the provisions of C1.8(b), a candidate who appears or fails to appear at the second semester examination may be allowed to appear/reappear in one or more courses of the second semester along with the examination in the courses of the fourth semester at the end of the second year, on his foregoing the earlier performance in writing in the courses concerned in case he had previously appeared in the same.

(c) A candidate who appears or fails to appear at the third semester examination may be allowed to appear/reappear in one or more courses of the third semester along with the examination in the courses of the fourth semester, at the end of the second year, on his foregoing the earlier performance, in writing in the courses concerned in case he had previously appeared in the same.

The petitioner appeared successfully in the first two semesters. In the third semester the petitioner did not take Paper X. She, however, took this paper along with other papers in the fourth semester. The petitioner was declared passed in the M.A. (Maths) examination. According to the grade card of the University of Delhi the petitioner had obtained 5.70 grade point average with gradation ''O'' (outstanding). It is not disputed that the petitioner had secured highest percentage of marks in this examination.

Various prizes and medals are awarded to successful candidates by the University of Delhi. According to the petitioner, on the basis of her performance in the M.A. (Maths) examination, she was entitled to receive five prizes/medals. These prizes/medals are contained in Ordinance XXVIII of the University of Delhi Ordinances and are as follows:-

(a) "Professor Ram Behari Gold Medal":

10(1). There shall be a Medal known as the "Professor Ram Behari Gold Medal" to be awarded out of the annual income accruing from the endowment of Rs. 4,500/- made by the ''Professor Ram Behari Valedictory Function Committee''.

(2) The Medal shall be awarded each year to a candidate who obtains the highest percentage of marks amongst the successful candidates at the M.A. and M.Sc. Examinations in Mathematics of this University, obtaining a first division.

(b) 1. (a) M. Makhan Lal Gold Medal:

The M. Makhan Lal Gold Medal of the value of the income of the Trust Fund shall be awarded annually to the best Hindu woman student who passed a Degree Examination of the University in that year obtaining a First Class or Distinction. The order of preference shall be as follows:-

M.A. or M.Sc.

2.........

3.........

(c) Shri Ram Chandra Memorial Medals:

(1) There shall be a Medal known as the ''Shri Ram Chandra Memorial Medal'' to be awarded out of the annual income accruing from the endowment of Rs. 4,000/- made by Professor M.K. Singal, Meerut.

(5) The Medal shall be awarded each year to a candidate who obtains the highest percentage of marks amongst the successful candidates of M.A. and M.Sc. Examinations (all subjects taken together) of this University, obtaining a first division, provided that the candidate completes the final examination for the M.A./M.Sc. Degree within two years of his first admission to the M.A./ M.Sc. course.

(3) The Medal shall be presented to the candidate at the Annual Convocation of the University.

(d) Shrimati Sivakamamma Radhakrishnan Prize:

(1) There shall be a prize known as the ''Shrimati Sivakamamma Radhakrishnan Prize'' of the value of Rs. 80/- or of the annual income accruing from the endowment of Rs. 2,375/-.

(2) The Prize will be awarded each year to a woman candidate who obtains the highest percentage of marks in the M.A. Examination of Delhi University obtaining a first division.

(3) It shall be presented in the form of books at the Annual Convocation of the University.

(e) J.N. Mitra Memorial Medal:

(1) There shall be a Medal and a Prize to be awarded out of the annual income accruing from the endowment of Rs. 7,000/- made by Prof. J.N. Mitra, Department of Physics and Astrophysics, University of Delhi, Delhi.

(2) (a) The Medal known as ''J.N. Mitra Memorial Medal'' of the value of two-third of annual income accruing from the endowment shall be awarded each year, to the candidate who secures the highest percentage of marks amongst the successful candidates of the M.A./M.Sc. Examination in Mathematics. Mathematical Statistics and M.Sc. in Physics of this University obtaining a first divisions.

(Emphasis added.)

The University issued a list of candidates who had been awarded various University Medals/Prizes for 1981. These were proposed to be awarded in the Annual Convocation of the University which was scheduled to take place on 25th March, 1982. The name of the petitioner was not included in the said list as an awardee for any of the aforementioned five prizes/medals. As per the said list, Professor Ram Behari Gold Medal was awarded to respondent No. 3, who had secured 5.59 G.P.A. with grade ''O'' in M.A. (Mathematics); M. Makhan Lal Gold Medal was sought to be awarded to respondent No. 4, who had secured 5.5 G.P.A. with grade ''O'' in M.A. (Mathematical Statistics); Shri Ram Chandra Memorial Medal was proposed to be awarded to respondent No. 5, who had secured 5.61 G.P.A. with grade ''O'' in M.Sc. (Mathematical Statistics); Smt. Sivakamamma Radhakrishnan Prize was proposed to be awarded to respondent No. 4 and J.N. Mitra Memorial Medal was proposed to be awarded to respondent No. 5.

On the receipt of the University''s list of prizes, the Principal of St. Stephen''s College wrote a letter dated 15th March, 1982 to the Controller of Examinations, respondent No. 2, bringing to his notice the fact that the petitioner had passed her M.A. (Maths) Examination with highest percentage of marks, and that her name was not appearing in the said list, whereas candidates with lesser grade point average were included therein. Respondent No. 2 was requested to check up the list. It appears that no reply was received by the Principal from respondent No. 2. The petitioner also met the Vice-Chancellor on 15th March, 1982 and represented her case in person. The petitioner was informed by the Vice-Chancel for that, according to the legal advice which had been obtained by the University, the petitioner was not eligible for the award of any of the said prizes/medals. According to the respondents, the Vice-Chancellor informed the petitioner that the University proposed to obtain further legal opinion from some Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court on the representation which had been sent by the petitioner.

The petitioner thereafter met the Assistant Controller of Examinations, Delhi University. It was at that time that the petitioner was informed that as she had not appeared in Paper X in the third semester, but had qualified in the said paper along with fourth semester, then as per the legal advice obtained by it, the University considered that she would not be entitled for any award under the provisions of Ordinance XXVIII. The petitioner contended before the Assistant Controller of Examinations that the interpretation sought to be placed by the University on the said Ordinance XXVIII was wrong and that, on a correct interpretation of the same, she was entitled to the awards. It was also contended by her that, in a number of other cases, students had been given various awards/prizes, notwithstanding the fact that they had reappeared in some of the papers with a view to improve their percentage of marks.

The petitioner did not receive any redress from the University and, therefore, filed the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, praying for a writ of mandamus to the effect that respondents 1 and 2 should be directed to award the aforesaid 5 medals/prizes to the petitioner.

In the return to the writ petition, the respondents have not disputed the aforesaid facts. It has, however, been contended that in 1969 a question arose as to whether an ex-student appearing at the annual examination would also be entitled to compete for the award of medals or prizes. The University was advised, at that time, that in accordance with Ordinance XXVIII no distinction could be drawn between an ex-student and a regular student and, therefore, an ex-student would also be entitled to compete for the award of medals or prizes. With a view to eliminate an ex-student from being considered for such an award the Academic Council of the University, in its meeting held on 12th Nov., 1970, by resolution No. 369 resolved as follows:-

(a) The first Annual Examination at which the candidate was eligible to appear at the examination having pursued a regular course of study within the minimum span period prescribed should be taken into account for purposes of awarding the Prizes/Medals.

(b) Wherever necessary, consequential amendments be made in the Ordinances governing the award of the Prizes/Medals, after obtaining further legal opinion, if necessary.

At the time when the aforesaid resolution was passed by the Academic Council, semester system had not been introduced in the Delhi University. Before amendments, consequent to the aforesaid resolution, could be made in the Ordinances governing the award of Prizes/Medals the semester system was introduced in the University. According to the respondents, it was advised by the Standing Counsel that with the introduction of the semester system a logical extension of the intention of the Academic Council would be that, for the purpose of determining the eligibility of a candidate for the award of any prize or medal, the marks obtained by him in any examination which he repeated should not be taken into consideration, with a further proviso that the concerned candidate should have passed the examination or each examination, where there were more than one, within the minimum span period prescribed.

It was on the basis of the aforesaid legal advice that the Academic Council, in its meeting held on 19th Oct., 1972, resolved that a new Ordinance XXVIII-A be added.

The said Ordinance reads as follows:-

Notwithstanding anything contained in Ordinance XXVIII, the following Rule shall apply, in all cases where it can be made applicable, to determine the eligibility of a candidate for the award of any Medal or Prize:

Only the marks secured by a candidate in an examination or in each of the examinations, as the case may be, in which in his course of study he should have appeared in the normal course within the minimum span period prescribed shall be taken into consideration.

According to the respondents, despite the aforesaid Ordinance XXVIII-A having been framed, the marks secured by a candidate in an examination, which he had repeated, continued to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining his eligibility for the award of Prizes or Medals, provided that the candidate had passed the course within the minimum span period prescribed. It is contended, that it is only in the year 1980-81 that the matter was investigated in detail and legal opinion was obtained. The legal opinion given to the University was that, on a correct interpretation of the said Ordinance, a candidate absenting himself from an examination in a paper was to be treated on the same footing as the candidate who failed to pass a paper, and if the latter became ineligible for the award on account of his not having passed the examination in the normal course within the minimum span prescribed, then there was no reason why the disqualification should not apply equally to a candidate who had absented himself from the examination in a paper. According to the respondents, similar would be a case where a candidate repeats the paper in a subsequent semester. According to the respondents, in all such cases with regard to the said paper, for the purposes of deciding as to whether that candidate is entitled to an award of a Prize or a Medal, the marks obtained by that candidate in that paper would be taken as Zero.

Mr. Shanti Bhushan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the interpretation sought to be placed by the University was clearly unwarranted. According to the learned counsel, the words of the Ordinance do not postulate the candidates being required to pass every paper at the first available opportunity. According to the learned counsel, if a candidate obtains the highest marks in the minimum span which is relatable to the examination, namely, two years in the case of M.A., then that candidate would be entitled to get the medals/prizes irrespective of the fact as to whether he had repeated any paper or not. Mr. Mridul, the learned counsel for the respondent-University, on the other hand, reiterated the stand of the University. According to the learned counsel, the moment a student does not appear in a paper or fails in it or repeats that paper then, for the purposes of Ordinance XXVIII-A, that student must be regarded as getting zero marks, notwithstanding the fact that the student may have completed his course of study within the stipulated period of two years.

From the above it is clear that the only issue which arises for consideration is as to what is the correct interpretation of Ordinance XXVIII-A. It is not disputed that if the marks obtained by the petitioner in Paper X, which she had to take in the third semester, are taken into consideration then she would be entitled to the aforesaid five prizes/medals as, admittedly, she has obtained 5.70 average grade points and has gradation ''O''.

Under Ordinance XXVIII different prizes/medals are to be awarded. These five prizes/medals, with which we are concerned in this petition, have been set-up by virtue of endowments/trusts. The medals/prizes are to be awarded to those candidates who obtain the highest percentage of marks in the M.A. Examination, provided the candidate obtains a first division. The terms of the awards, as set out in the said Ordinance XXVIII, do not contemplate medals/prizes being given to candidates who do not obtain the highest percentage of marks.

It is in the aforesaid background that Ordinance XXVIII-A has to be interpreted. If the interpretation sought to be placed on Ordinance XXVIII-A by the University is to be accepted then the effect of that would be that candidates who have not secured highest percentage of marks would be given the different awards. In the present case, respondents 3 to 5 have, in the M.A. or M.Sc. examination, got lesser percentage of marks than the petitioner. Nevertheless, the University is proposing to give the awards to respondents 3 to 5 and not to the petitioner. Giving all these awards to respondents 3 to 5, in preference to the petitioner, would per se be contrary to the provisions of Ordinance XXVIII and the terms of the said awards.

Is there anything in Ordinance XXVIII-A which compels the University to ignore the marks of the examination in any one or more papers which are repeated or taken in any subsequent semester, even though the candidate obtains the M.A. degree within the minimum period provided, namely, two years?

A close scrutiny of Ordinance XXVIII-A would show that the stand of the University is clearly untenable. The said Ordinance provides that, in order to determine the eligibility of a candidate for the award, only those marks shall be taken into consideration which are obtained by him in any examination in which, in his course of study, he should have appeared in the normal course, within the minimum span period prescribed. The said Ordinance is applicable to all types of examinations held by the University of Delhi. Some courses of study have semester system, other courses do not. The semester system, as provided by the Rules of the University, entitles a candidate not to take all the papers at the first instance. A candidate may take one or more papers in the first semester, and if he abstains to take any examination in any of the papers he can take the same in the subsequent semester, as provided in the aforesaid R.9. Similarly, the said rule entitles a candidate to improve the percentage of his marks by repeating the paper in a subsequent semester. In such a case, however, the candidate has to give an undertaking in writing that the marks obtained in that paper, which he wants to repeat, should be treated as cancelled. The effect of this is that if in the subsequent attempt, in that very paper, the candidate obtains lesser marks then he cannot insist on the marks obtained by him on the previous occasion being counted. It is only the marks which the candidate gets in the paper which he repeats will be taken into consideration in the final computation. The words "in the normal course" occurring in Ordinance XXVIII-A would mean in the course in which a candidate is normally expected to follow in accordance with the rules. In the semester system it would be in the normal course if a candidate repeats a paper or abstains from taking examination in a paper and takes the same subsequently. It would be a normal course because the rules provide for the same. The further requirement of the said Ordinance is that the examination must be taken by the candidate within the minimum span prescribed. The expression ''examination'' in Ordinance XXVIII is the examination with respect to which the award is to be given. The examination in question in the present case is M.A. examination and not the examination of various papers in each semester. The minimum span prescribed for M.A. examination is two years. Therefore, within the period of two years, whatever marks a candidate obtains the same have to be taken into consideration for the purposes of Ordinance XXVIII-A. irrespective of the fact as to whether the candidate has repeated a paper or had abstained from taking that paper at the first available opportunity.

The expression ''in the normal course'' occurring in Ordinance XXVIII-A does not mean at the first available opportunity. In our view it will be making a mockery of semester system if the marks of the papers which are repeated are to be ignored for the purposes of awards and prizes. It will not be logical that, for the purposes of determining the eligibility of a candidate for the award of any prize or medal, the marks secured by that candidate in any examination which he repeats should not be taken into consideration. The candidate takes a risk when he repeats an examination in the paper. As already noted, he has to give in writing that he surrenders the marks which he has obtained earlier. According to the respondents the moment he surrenders the marks then, for the purposes of Ordinance XXVIII-A, it will be regarded as if that candidate gets zero in that paper. This will be clearly shutting one''s eyes to the realities of the situation. Supposing a candidate, like the petitioner, had obtained in Paper X in third semester 85 per cent marks. She being a bright student, may not be satisfied with that. She is entitled to surrender her marks and repeat the said paper. Supposing in such a case she gets 95 per cent at the second attempt. According to the respondents, though for the purposes of the award of the M.A. degree the marks which will be taken into consideration would be 95 per cent but, for the purposes of giving an award under Ordinance XXVIII, the marks for that paper would be taken as zero, she having surrendered the marks of 85 per cent obtained by her earlier and the later marks not being taken into consideration. It is conceivable that, in the example which we have given above, the petitioner may still be having the highest percentage if the marks obtained at the earlier attempt in that paper are taken into consideration. But according to the University, because she surrendered those marks then for the purposes of giving of an award the marks to be taken into consideration would be zero. We find it very difficult to accept an interpretation which is sought to be placed by the University on Ordinance XXVIII-A, which will lead to such incongruous results.

The semester system had been adopted from abroad. The main idea in introducing the semester system was that bright students should get an opportunity of improving their performance. There should be no pressure of annual examinations on the students and they should be entitled to take the examinations as and when they feel that they are ready to take them. If for the purposes of the awarding of a degree, the marks in a repeated paper or of the paper taken in the subsequent semester are to be taken into consideration, we fail to understand the logic in not taking those marks into consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether or not a candidate is to be given the award of a prize or of a medal.

There is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the contention of the respondents is correct, and the examination in a paper is to be taken at the first available opportunity, then the words "within the minimum span period prescribed" would become redundant, as the first available opportunity must necessarily be within the time prescribed. The expression ''in the normal course'' may, possibly, exclude supplementary examination which may be held within the prescribed two years'' period or will certainly exclude any examination which is held in consequence of a permission which may be granted under Ordinance X-C, which enables the Academic Council to grant exemption from the operation of any of the Ordinances, inter alia, governing examinations. If, therefore, by a resolution of the Academic Council under Ordinance X-C a special examination is held then, possibly, that may not be regarded as an examination being taken in the normal course and the marks obtained in such an examination may not be counted for the purposes of an award. The examination taken by a candidate by repeating a paper cannot, however be equated with a supplementary examination or to an examination being taken by an ex-student.

For the aforesaid reasons the University, for the purposes of considering the eligibility of the petitioner for the grant of the aforesaid five prizes/medals, ought to have taken into consideration the marks obtained by her in Paper X which she had taken along with her other papers in the fourth semester. Because the aforesaid marks have to be taken into consideration, it must follow that the petitioner would be entitled to receive the aforesaid five prizes/medals, as she has admittedly got higher percentage of marks than respondents 3 to 5 and she thus becomes entitled to receive the awards. The list of the awardees prepared by the University in respect of the aforesaid five medals/prizes has to be quashed to that extent. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The decision of respondents 1 and 2 to award the aforesaid five medals/prizes to respondents 3 to 5 is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondents 1 and 2 to award the aforesaid five medals/prizes to the petitioner. The petitioner will be entitled to costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 550/-. The costs shall be borne by respondents 1 and 2 alone.