IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. Patel, S.G. Dige, JJ.
Savita Balaso Niruke – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 15821 of 2022
Decided On : 04-01-2023
Grace Marks - Law Students - Ordinance 94, Ordinance 96 - The court discussed the interpretation of Ordinance 94 and Ordinance 96, focusing on the phrase 'that examination' and 'head of passing'. The court rejected the petitioners' interpretation and emphasized that the literal meaning of the words should be accepted, and the words 'examination' or 'head of passing' cannot be liberally expanded to return a result which would result in a complete absurdity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, law students, sought a Mandamus for grace marks based on their performance in semester examinations. The court found that the petitioners repeatedly failed physical examinations, then suddenly passed online examinations, only to fail physical examinations again.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitions, emphasizing that the literal meaning of the words in the ordinances should be accepted, and the interpretation contrary to the plain and literal meaning of the words should not be accepted.
Issues: Interpretation of Ordinance 94 and Ordinance 96, eligibility for grace marks, and the pattern of the petitioners' examination results.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the interpretation of beneficial ordinances should not result in a complete absurdity and that the student must be worthy of receiving the benefit.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
GS PATEL,J. - The consolidated Petition seeks a common relief for two Petitioners who are differently positioned. There ought to have been two separate Petitions as each Petitioner has a distinct cause of action and a distinct factual data set. Since, however, urgency is expressed, rather than lose time by directing the filing of a second Petition, or the withdrawal of this Petition and the filing of two fresh Petitions, we have proceeded with the hearing. There is also a consolidated reply filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent by one Gajanan Ramakant Palse. The 2nd Respondent is the Registrar/Vice Chancellor of Shivaji University, Kolhapur. The Affidavit is filed by Deputy Registrar (Examination).
2. The 1st Petitioner, Savita Balaso Niruke, and the 2nd Petitioner, Sanjay Dhondu Kolekar, are both law students. The factual background briefly stated is this.
3. Savita took admission to the New Law College, Kolhapur in 2015. The New Law College is affiliated with the Shivaji University, Kolhpur. Sanjay obtained admission in March 2018 to the law course at the Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur.
4. Until March 2020, neither Savita nor Sanjay did well in their semester examinations. That is putting it at its mildest. They did very badly. Since 2015, Savita consistently failed a first semester examination until October 2019. After March 2020, the examinations were held online. Savita passed all the online examinations until October 2021. In March 2022, the examination was again offline but in Multiple Choice Question or MCQ format. Savita failed again. We only note these dates. Everybody knows what happened in the period between March 2020 and late 2021. The reasons why examinations were held online is also well known. We should not be understood to have expressed any view as to the reasons for this cycle of failing, passing, and failing yet again. Savita has applied for the revaluation of papers after March 2022, but without a fruitful result.
5. Sanjay's performance is hardly better. After he obtained admission to Shahaji Law College in March 2018, he failed in the examinations until October 2019. He successfully passed the online examinations between March 2020 to October 2021, but in March 2022 failed the MCQ format offline examination.
6. It is in this factual background that the Petitioners seek a Mandamus in terms of prayer clause (a) at page 12. It reads thus:
"a. this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to grant the petitioner No 1 and 2, 7 grace marks/Condonation of Deficit Marks in subject Law Of Crimes II Criminal Procedure Code, Labour Law II Industrial Law respectively in the 6th Semester Examination held on month of March 2022 and further declare that the petitioners have passed the 6th semester of the LLB course of 3 years law course conducted by the respondent number 2 and further to issue the result to that effect."
7. The invocation for the grace marks is on the basis of certain ordinances, two in particular. We turn to these directly. These are at pages 25 to 27. We are concerned with Ordinance 94 and Ordinance 96, reproduced below. O.94:(U.O.01.):
Grace Marks for passing in each head of passing (Theory/Practical/Oral/Sessional) (External/Internal):
The examinee shall be given the benefit of grace marks only for passing in each head of passing (Theory/Practical/Oral/Sessional) in External or Internal examination as follows:
Head of Passing Grace Marks
Up to 50 2
51 to 100 3
101 to 150 4
151 to 200 5
201 to 250 6
251 to 300 7
301 to 350 8
351 to 400 9
401 and above 10
Provided that the benefit of such gracing marks given in different heads of passing shall not exceed 1% of the aggregate marks in that examination.
Provided further that the benefit of gracing of marks under this Ordinance shall be applicable only if the candidate passes the entire examination of semester/year. Provided further that this gracing
The literal meaning of the words in ordinances should be accepted, and the interpretation contrary to the plain and literal meaning of the words should not be accepted.
The discretion to award grace marks lies with the university as per MCI regulations and cannot be claimed as a right, especially for practical exams.
Judicial review is limited in academic matters unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or regulations.
The court established that new educational regulations can supersede previous ones, and students do not have a vested right to evaluation standards that have changed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that students cannot challenge the nature of the course and the pattern of examination after admission and participation, especially when they were....
The 2023 Guidelines supersede previous regulations, prohibiting the awarding of grace marks in MBBS examinations, emphasizing the court's limited role in academic policy matters.
Courts should not interfere in academic matters of educational institutions, unless or until same does not pass test of reasonableness or are violative of principles of natural justice.
The University acted unlawfully by retroactively applying amended examination regulations, resulting in the wrongful failure of a student who met the passing criteria under the original rules.
Point of Law : A candidate who passed B.Ed. examination of this University or B.Ed examination of another University recognized by Syndicate may be permitted to take a special course in a subject if ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.