Raman Kumar vs Panjab University

R.L. Anand, J.—Raman Kumar and Vikas Kalucha, petitioners, have filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to declare that the petitioners have passed in the 4th year BAMS Examination. The petitioners have further prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the orders, Annexures P-3, P-9 and P-10.

The case set up by the petitioners is that they joined the institute-respondent No. 2 for doing BAMS Degree Course in the month of October, 1988. The course was of six years duration One year for pre-Ayurveda and S years for the Degree Course. In the year 1991, respondent No, 2 was provisionally affiliated with Punjab University and respondent No. 1 allowed the College to follow the regulations of Punjabi University, Patiala, as no regulations were framed by it for the said Degree Course. Respondent No. 1 introduced professionally; i.e. two terms of 1-1/2 years each, and third term of two years duration. The profes- sional system was also started in the College affiliated to the Punjab State Faculty from the year 1992. Respondent No. I vide its meeting held on 13.3.1993 decided to allow the students enrolled up to 1991 to continue with the annual system and Syllabi/Regulations. The case set up by the petitioners further is that on 28.8.1998, they passed all the five years of BAMS Degree Course except one paper-B of Parsooti Tantra (Gynae) pertaining to the 4th year. Since the petitioners could not clear the said paper of the 4th year, their result was declared as cancelled. The petitioners allege that they have already cleared the BAMS Degree Course except single Paper-B of Parsooti Tantra (Gynae), therefore, for the sake of their academic career, they requested the authorities to grant them a mercy chance. In September, 1998, the request of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that the same was not covered under the existing rules. Now, the case set up by the petitioners is that after great efforts they came to know the detail marks of the 4th year and if the University is called upon to give the grace marks as per Regulation 15(i) of the Punjabi University Patiala Calendar Volume II, Annexure P-2, they will become successful in the entire course. They have been deprived of these grace marks by the University as a result of which they are suffering irreparable loss to their academic career. In short, the case set up by the petitioners is that they are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 15(i).

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 filed the written statement and the stand taken up by the respondent No. 1 is primarily contained in para-7 of the written statement, which is quoted below :-

"That the contents of this para are correct and are hence admitted. The petitioners were not given any more mercy chances for the reason that after having availed of the five chances to clear the paper of Parsooti Tantra, the petitioners were granted two more mercy chances, despite which they could not clear the said paper. As such, no more mercy chances were considered fit to be granted to the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioner cannot claim a mercy chance as of right for any reason whatsoever. The instances set out by the petitioners do not carry their case any further, as the petitioners were also granted 7th mercy chance just like the students whose names have been set out."

It was further the stand of the University that the case of the petitioners fell in clauses (ii) and (iii) of Regulation 15 and, as such, they were not eligible to take the advantage of clause 15(i), which is being relied upon by the petitioners.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

Counsel for the petitioners invites my attention to para- 12 of the writ petition which shows that so far as petitioner No. 1 -Raman Kumar is concerned, he got 69 marks in Paper A of Parsooti Tantra, 9 marks in Paper-B (Gynae), 13 marks in internal assessment and 54 marks in practical. In this manner, his aggregate marks in Paper-4 were 145. So far as petitioner No. 2-Vikas Kalucha is concerned, he got 69 marks in Internal Assessment and 52 marks in practicals and his total marks were 142. So far as other papers 1 to 3 were concerned, both the petitioners got more than 50% marks as required under the Regulations. The minimum marks required by the petitioners in paper-4 were 150. Thus, it can be said that petitioner No. 1 was short of 5 marks and petitioner No. 2 was short of 8 marks.

It is conceded at the Bar by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners could not clear the examination in the first go. So much so, they availed different chances, including mercy chances. It was their 7th attempt when they got the marks of 145 and 142 in Paper-4, respectively. The point for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of grace marks which are permissible under Regulation 15(i) which lays down as follows :-

"1. % of the total aggregate marks including the marks of practical and Internal Assessment may be awarded to a candidate who fails in one or more subjects in order to declare him to have passed the examination."

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this clause does not make any distinction with regard to the various chances to be availed by a candidate before getting the benefit of 1 % of the total aggregate marks. The total aggregate marks of 4th year are 1100 and, therefore, in this manner, the benefit of 11 marks can be given to each of the petitioners but in the present case, petitioner No. 1 wants the benefit of 5 marks while petitioner No. 2 wants the benefit of 8 marks. By virtue of clause 15(i), the petitioners can be deemed to have passed in paper-4 and, therefore, the University was bound to declare the petitioners as pass.

On the contrary, counsel for respondent No. 1 invites my attention to Regulations 10, 11 and 15(ii) and 15(iii) and submits that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the grace marks because it was incumbent upon the petitioners to clear other papers within a span of two years they should have completed the examination in four consecutive chances within this period, before they get the benefit of Regulation 15(i).

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and in my opinion, clause 15(i) which is being relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners is an independent one and the University has to give the benefit to the petitioners irrespective of the fact that they have not cleared the other papers within four consecutive chances falling within two years. Clause 15(i), which I have already reproduced above, does not lay any condition as suggested by the counsel for respondent No. 1. It is the common case of the parties that special mercy chance was given to the petitioners, including other candidates, and this chance was given for the benefit of those candidates who, unfortunately, could lay such a condition as suggested by counsel for respondent No. 1, would tantamount to nullifying the provisions of Regulation 15(i).

In this view of the matter, it is hereby declared that respondent No. 1 is bound to give grace marks to each of the petitioners with respect of paper-4, because if 5 and 8 grace marks are given to petitioners No. 1 and 2, respectively, they get 150 marks in paper-4 and become pass in this paper.

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed by quashing the orders, Annexures P-3, P-9 and P-10, and directions are given to the respondent- University to declare the result of the petitioners keeping in view the observations made by this court within 10 days from the receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

During the course of submissions, it was submitted on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the entire records have gone to Baba Farid University, Faridkot. It is also made clear that the Baba Farid University, Faridkot, which has succeeded the affairs of respondent No. 1, shall be bound by this order.

Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties.

Petition allowed.