IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner should not suffer due to a university's mistake in preparing and rectifying examination results.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein following main reliefs:

“(i) That the impugned orders Annexures-P-5 and P-7, dated 14.06.2023 and 06.11.2023, respectively, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That respondent No. 1-University may kindly be directed to carry out necessary corrections/rectification in the MBBS Final Prof. (Part-1) result qua the petitioner against Roll No. 259, by awarding her 71 marks in the practical examination of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology instead of 54 marks and thereafter;

(iii) Respondent No. 1-University may kindly be directed to issue the revised Result-cum-Detailed Marks Certificate in favour of the petitioner at the earliest.”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner, who was admitted to MBBS Degree Course in respondent No. 2-Medical College in the year 2019, participated in MBBS, 3rd Prof. (Part-1) Annual Examination in the month of January, 2023 under examination Roll No. 2593. As per the date sheet of the examination issued by respondent-University, the theory examinations of third Professional (Part-1) Annual Examination were held w.e.f. 24.01.2023 upto 31.01.2023 and the practical examinations were held in the first week of February, 2023. For the purpose of conducting examination, respondent No. 2-Principal of College, constituted the committees of external examiners and internal examiners, who after examining the practical work of the students, awarded marks, which were ultimately to be included in the marks obtained by the candidates in written examination. Once the written examination was over, the marks of theory and practical examinations were sent to respondent-University for publication of the final result. After sending the marks of practicals by the department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, respondent-University noticed the discrepancy in the final result of 29 students (Roll No. 2591-2691) of MBBS Third Prof. (Part-1) and as such, respondent-college was telephonically asked on 25.03.2023, to rectify the mistake. After having received the aforesaid telephonic call from respondent-University, respondent No. 3-College, conducted an inquiry and found that there was a copying/transcription error, wherein the final result of the students was prepared on Excel-sheet, which was copied to Word Pad to prepare final copy of the result, as a result thereof, wrong marks came to be sent to the respondent-University with regard to practical examination. Pursuant to aforesaid telephonic information received by the college from respondent -University, Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Dr. Radhakrishnan Government Medical College, Hamirpur, H.P. sent a communication to Assistant Registrar (Exam-3) H.P. University, intimating thereby that there was clerical mistake in the sum total of students in practical examination marks qua Roll Nos. 2591-2619, held on 10/12 February, 2023. Along with aforesaid communication, college also submitted result of students prepared after correcting the clerical mistake. However, fact remains that respondent-University, without taking note of the aforesaid communication sent by the respondent-college, proceeded to declare the result (Annexure P-1) on 25.04.2023, wherein petitioner Shiesta Sharma, (Roll No. 2593) was shown to have obtained 1870 marks in total. Immediately after declaration of result, Controller of Examination, respondent- university, also issued mark sheet (Annexure P-2) wherein in the subject of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, petitioner was shown to have obtained 61 marks in written examination and 54 marks in practical, as a result thereof, petitioner was shown to have obtained 115 marks.

3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the present petition and further canvassed by Mr. Suren