Saroj vs Maharishi Dayanand University

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.—The petitioner-Saroj appeared in the final examination of the Post Graduate Diploma in Labour Law, Labour Welfare and Personnel Management for the first time in May, 1996. On the declaration of the result on 7th October, 1996 vide Annexure P-5, she was shown as having obtained 42% and 46% marks in Papers-I and IV respectively. As the pass percentage was 50, the petitioner was called upon to appear in Paper I yet again and she, accordingly, appeared in the examination held in September, 1997. On the declaration of the result on 20th November, 1997 vide Annexure P-1, she was once again shown as having failed, as she had got only 45 marks in Paper-I. The petitioner has, accordingly, come to this Court claiming that as the total marks for the diploma in question were 650, she was entitled to seven grace marks in all and if these seven marks had been given to her, she would have passed the said paper having secured 52 marks.

On notice of motion, a reply has been filed by the respondent-University and it has been conceded that the petitioner was entitled to the award of seven grace marks. It has, however, been explained that as a matter of fact, the petitioner had obtained only 46% marks in Paper IV in the examination held in May, 1996 and that four out of seven grace marks that were available to the petitioner had been given to her at that time making a total of 50% marks in all so as to enable her to pass in the paper. It has also been pleaded that at best only three marks now remained available to the petitioner and if these three marks were added to the 45% marks, the petitioner would still not get 50% marks in the examination in Paper-I so as to pass the examination.

A replication has also been filed by the petitioner and it has been pointed out that it had nowhere been mentioned in the result sheet Annexure P5 that four grace marks had been exhausted while giving the same to the petitioner in Paper-IV and that this clearly was an after-thought and contrary to the record.

Mr. K.L. Suneja, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two basic arguments based on the pleadings which have been set out above. He has urged that it was not open to the University to break up the grace marks available to a candidate in the manner suggested. It has also been alleged that the plea of the respondents that four grace marks had been given to enable the petitioner to pass in Paper-IV in the May, 1996 Examination, was not borne out from the record. The respondent''s counsel, however, controverting the plea raised by the petitioner has relied upon the written statement:

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition. The provision relating to the award of grace marks has been dealt with in Clause-I of the ordinance which reads thus:-

"A candidate who fails in one or more paper(s)/subject(s) written, practical Sessional/internal assessment or Viva Voce and/or in the aggregate shall be given grace marks upto 1% of the aggregate marks (excluding the marks for internal assessment sessionals) of the paper(s)/subject(s) in which he has actually appeared in that examination, provided by the addition of these marks he passes in the examination or is placed in compartment or earns exemption..........."

It is conceded that seven marks in all were available to the petitioner which could be apportioned to her best advantage. Had the petitioner not been awarded four grace marks for the examination held in May, 1996, she would have failed in two papers instead of one entitling her to reappear in these two papers in the supplementary examination. The fact, remains that the petitioner had taken advantage of four grace marks in order to enable her to pass in all but one paper i.e. Paper-I. It is, thus, clear that four out of seven grace marks available to the petitioner had been exhausted in the examination held in May, 1996 and as such, she would be entitled at best to only three marks in the examination held in September, 1997 and even if these are given to her, she would still not get the 50% marks to succeed in the examination.

Mr. Suneja''s alternative argument must also be examined. The record has been produced by the University in Court today. The petitioner who had appeared in the examination in May, 1996 under roll No. 14991 had been awarded 46% marks in Paper-IV by the Examiner and four grace marks had been added later on in red ink by the University. This is evident from the result-sheet produced in Court. Mr. Suneja, however, expresses a lack of faith in the aforesaid document. Mr. Gupta has, accordingly, produced on record the award sheet filled by the Examiner with regard to Paper-IV and in this sheet as well, 46 marks have been shown in figures as well as in words and the entries have been duly signed by the Examiner, Professor Veer Singh, Head of Law Department of Punjab University, whose integrity cannot, under any circumstances, be doubted. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.