K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, C.J. Shri Dahyabhai Ravchand Medal, Late Shri Mojilal Purshottamdas M. Pandya and Shrimati Jayalaxmi M. Pandya Medal, The Bank of India Prize are the three medals instituted for awarding to the student, who pass in first attempt first class and score the highest marks in the University Examination of 3rd year B.Com. In the convocation held on 19-2-2009, the above mentioned medals were awarded to the second respondent. Writ petition was preferred by the first respondent herein staking claim for the above-medals stating that he had obtained more marks than the second respondent on reassessment of his answer-sheets, and he is the legitimate person to get those medals.

2. University took up the stand that Rules for Reassessment specifically provided that a student, whose result is revised after reassessment, shall not have any claim to any medal/scholarship/prize, etc. on the basis of such revision.

3. Learned Single Judge interpreting the Rules for reassessment allowed the writ petition holding that since first respondent had obtained more marks than the second respondent, first respondent is the legitimate person to get the medals. Consequently, University was directed to award the medals to the first respondent on the basis of marks obtained on reassessment, and also to issue necessary certificate showing the final result of the first respondent on that basis.

4. University aggrieved by that direction has approached this Court in this' appeal.

Mr. S. N. Shelat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University, submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in directing the University to award the medals to the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent had obtained more marks than the second respondent on reassessment. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Rule 12 of Rules for Reassessment specifically provided that if there is any change in marks or result due to reassessment, the student shall not be eligible to receive any medal/scholarship/prize on the basis of that changed result. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that first respondent has agreed to this condition specified in Rule 12 of the Rules for Reassessment, and hence, he is estopped from claiming that he is entitled to receive the medals/scholarship/prize on the basis of marks obtained on reassessment. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that University is willing to give the first respondent a certificate certifying that the University could not offer the medals under such circumstances, though he has obtained first rank on reassessment. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the University will give a certificate stating that as per Rules for Reassessment a student cannot be awarded such medal/scholarship/price, though he was otherwise entitled to gold medals which were awarded to the second respondent.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the University referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Malwrashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth. AIR 1984 SC 1543 and submitted that a student cannot demand reassessment of his answer-papers as a matter of right. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indu Shekhar Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2432, and contended that the University had undertaken the task of reassessment on the first respondent agreeing that he would not claim any medal/scholarship/prize if he gets more marks on reassessment. Having agreed to such condition, learned Senior Counsel submitted that first respondent cannot now contend that said condition is illegal.

6. Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing for the first respondent submitted that learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the first respondent is entitled to get the medals, since he got more marks than the second respondent on reassessment. Learned Advocate General submitted that the purpose

Click Here to Read the rest of this document