M.L. JOSHI, J.—These three writ petitions arise on facts which are closely parallel and also are based on identical grounds. They are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions appeared in the examination of L.L.M. Part I held in the year 1974 The petitioners Mirza Shokat Beg and Murarilal appeared as exstudents whereas petitioner Azeez Hasan Khan Majeedi appeared as a regular student in the said examination. There were four papers prescribed by the University for the LL. M. Part I examination. They were—

(1) Legal Theory.

(2) Legislation Principles, Methods and Interpretation.

(3) Legal History of India; and

(4) Comparative Law.

3. In the year 1974 LL. M. Part I examination the examinees were required to attempt four questions in each question-paper but later on choice was given to the examinees to attempt three questions. The examiners were instructed to give marks to the examinees for the three questions attempted by them and further to add 1/3 of the total marks obtained in three questions in respect of the fourth question which would be taken to be the aggregate marks secured by the examinee in that particular subject.

4 All the three petitioners took the LL. M. Part I examination in the year 1974 but were declared failed at the said examination. The grievance of all the three petitioners is that the result of the examination was vitiated on the ground that as per the rules and instructions of the University their answer books were not sent to the third examiner although there was difference of more than 15 per cent in the two awards allotted in the paper though it was incumbent upon the University to do so as per the rules and instructions contained in Annexure I. The submission of the petitioners is that there was a mechanism for double evaluation of the answer books to ensure the accurate evaluation of the examinees answer books. It was incumbent upon University to sent the answer books to the third examiner in the concerned paper where the difference in two awards was more than 15 percent of the maximum marks allotted in the paper. The petitioners therefore say that despite the fact there was difference of more than 15 per cent in maximum marks allotted in the paper their answer books of that paper were not sent to the third examiner without any sufficient justification. They, therefore, claim that in the absence of reference of their answer books to the third examiner they were entitled to get their result sheet framed on the basis of advantageous marks given by any of the two examiners and if so done they will be entitled to declare successful at the examination.

5. The petitioners further go on to aver in the petitions that for the year 1975 examination, the University introduced semester system whereunder candidates who failed at LL. M. Part I examination in the year 1974 were permitted to join LL. M Part II examination subject to the condition that besides taking examination in LL. M. Part II they will have to appear in those papers in which they had failed and further to pass in the aggregate also. This system was permitted under the decision of the academic council taken in its meeting held on 16-12-74 and 17-1-75. Accordingly the petitione«s got benefit of admission in LL.M. Part II and to appear in the said examination to be held in the year 1975.

6. The petitioners appeared in the LL.M. Part I examination in the year 1975 in those subjects in which they had failed under the semester system but they were not declared successful in those subjects and consequently all the petitioners were declared failed. Accordingly the results of the petitioners examination of the year 1975 for LL.M. Part II examination has been with held and it has not been declared till today.

7. As regards the result of Part II LL.M. examination under the semester system, the grievance of petitioners is that the system of re-evaluation was revised and it was directed by the University authoriti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document