The main legal point established in the judgment is that a university rule stating that re-evaluated marks shall not count for awarding medals was arbitrary and violated the principle of providing certainty and finality to the result of the candidates.

S.S. Nijjar, J. - In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/Mandamus quashing memo dated 20.1.1998, Annexure P-4 by which the claim of the petitioner for the award of a gold medal has been stated to have been considered by the authority and not acceded to. The petitioner also seeks the quashing/striking down of Clause 4.2 of the Ordinance Concerning Revaluation of Answer Books (hereinafter referred to as "the Revaluation Rule") framed by the respondent-university to the extent that it provides that the marks obtained as a result of re-evaluation of the papers of the Course concerned shall not count towards determining the position in the order of merits, distinction and award of Gold Medal. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to award the gold medal to the petitioner alongwith another candidate for having secured highest marks in M.Sc. (Physics) examination held in May, 1997.

2. The petitioner claims to be a brilliant student having secured distinction in all the prestigious academic examination from matric onwards. After successfully completing B.Sc., the petitioner got admission in M.Sc. (Physics) in the respondent-University. In the M.Sc. (previous) examination conducted by the respondent-University, the petitioner secured 385/500 marks i.e. 77% marks. She appeared in the final examination under Roll No. 1712 in May 1997. She was expecting to secure 400 marks or above out of 500 marks in the final year examination. She was disappointed with the final year result which indicated that she had secured 390 marks out of 500 marks. In this manner, the petitioner was shown to have secured 775 marks out of 1000 in the M.Sc. (Physics) examination. Copy of the result-cum-detailed marks card issued to the petitioner by the respondent-University has been attached to the petition as Annexure P-1. Another candidate, namely, Sh. Navin Kumar son of Munshi Ram, Roll No. 1685 who secured 781/1000 marks was shown to have stood first in the aforesaid University examination. Not satisfied with the performance as depicted in the result-cum-detailed marks card, the petitioner sought re- evaluation of marks in M.Sc. final year examination. On re-evaluation, the respondent-University increased the marks of the petitioner from 390/500 to 396/500 in the M.Sc. final year examination. As a result of re-evaluation, the total marks of the petitioner in M.Sc. (Physics) increased from 775/1000 to 781/1000. The respondent-University issued a revised Result-cum-Detailed Marks Card on 24.11.1997. Now the results of the petitioner were equal to the marks obtained by Navin Kumar i.e. 781/1000. According to the provisions contained in MDU Calendar Vo. II, a candidate securing highest marks in an examination of the University is entitled for the award of Gold Medal which is conferred in annual convocation to be held in the year immediate after the examination in question. The annual convocation of the respondent-University in the year 1988 was to be held in the month of September/October. The petitioner, therefore, requested respondent No. 3 well in advance to send the Revised result of the petitioner to the office of respondents No. 1 and 2 with the recommendation that the petitioner is also a co-winner of Gold Medal in the M.Sc. (Physics) Examination, 1997. Office of respondent No. 2, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner for the award of Gold Medal on 22.12.1997. The petitioner submitted another representation to the Vice- Chancellor of the University on 26.12.1997, seeking his intervention on the ground that the petitioner has been wrongly deprived of the Gold Medal. This representation was also rejected vide Memo dated 20.1.1998. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the action of the respondents and the vires of the relevant Clause 4.2 of the Revaluation Rule. The aforesaid Clause is as follows :

"4.2. The marks obtained a