The University's power to make ordinances is subject to the statutory provisions of the Act, and the University cannot devise a procedure that violates the mandate of Section 64.

SHAH, J.:- These three writ petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment since the points involved are the same. In all these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the result of the revaluation of their papers in the examination held in summer 1982 is null and void and also for quashing certain resolutions of the Academic Council and the Executive Council as being illegal and ultra vires of S.64, Nagpur University Act, 1974.

2. The facts are few and not in dispute. The three petitioners appeared for the examinations held in or about April 1982. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 498 of 1983, Miss Rohini Tare appeared for M.A. Part-I examination in Sanskrit. She was placed First Class First as she secured the highest number of marks in aggregate. In one of the papers namely, paper I on Vedic Linguistics Etymology, she was declared to have secured only 36 marks. As she was not satisfied with the assessment of her performance in the said subject, she applied to the University for revaluation of the said paper in accordance with the rules prescribed by the University. In due course she was informed that on revolution she was found to have secured only 16 marks in the said paper. The revaluation thus resulted in the drastic reduction of marks in the said paper, though even with this reduction of marks she continued to top the list of successful candidates.

3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 502 of 1983, Miss Hema Deshpande appeared for M.Sc. Part-I examination. As per the declared results she was placed in First Class. In two of the papers namely, Paper II on Enzymology and Paper IV on Environmental Micro Biology, she had secured only 45 and 42 out of 75 marks. As she was not satisfied about the valuation of marks in the said two papers, she applied to the University for revaluation of marks in those papers. The petitioner thereafter received the revised statement of marks from the University which showed that after the revaluation she was found to have received 32 and 29 marks respectively in the said papers, this resulting in a fall of 13 marks in both the papers.

4. The third petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1267 of 1983, J.T. Gilda had appeared in LL.B. Part-II examination and was declared to have fetched 409 marks out of total 700 marks. In four of the papers, for which he appeared, namely, Paper II on Hindu Law, Paper III Mahomedan and Partnership Law, Paper IV on Equity and Property Law and Paper VI on Tenancy Law, he had secured 67, 65, 51 and 48 marks out of 100 marks respectively. As the petitioner felt that the marks in these 4 papers were less than what he expected, he applied to the University for revaluation of marks as per the University Rules.

5. Thereafter the petitioner was furnished with the revised statement of marks. It shows that as a result of revaluation in the two papers on Equity and Property Law the marks were increased from 51 to 63, while the marks in the paper on Tenancy Law were maintained at 48 and the marks in paper on Hindu Law were reduced from 67 to 61 and in Mahomedan and Partnership Law reduced from 65 to 59.

6. It is the contention of the petitioners that the procedure devised by the University for appointments of examiners for revaluation of all the papers is invalid because the appointment of examiners was in total violation of the statutory provision of S.64. Nagpur University Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as also Ordinance No. 159 which specifically provides for appointment of examiners by following the procedure prescribed in S.64. In order to appreciate the contentions urged before us, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act.

7. Section 4 of the Act deals with the powers of the University. These powers are subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or under the provisions of the Act. Sub-sec. (14) (a) refers to the powers of the University to hold examin