Point of Law: Education Law - Re-evaluation and re-scrutiny of result - A student who has been permitted to seek reevaluation in terms of Clause 6 of Regulations and her marks considered as final score post re-evaluation is discriminated other students who did not seek re-evaluation - Student can seek re-evaluation only because Regulations permitted her/him to do so.

JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. Ms Neha Sharma has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking enforcement of her fundamental rights as well as challenging the legality and validity of the last sentence of Clause 10 of the Regulations on Conduct of Examinations of the Sikkim University (the Regulations).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in December 2016, she appeared for the III Semester Master of Arts December 2016 Examination conducted by the Sikkim University (respondent no.1) in the subject “Social Movements in India”. She secured 69 out of 100 marks and her Sessional Grade Point Average (SGPA) and Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) after the III semester was as follows :

Semester I II III C.G.P.A. Result

S.G.P.A. 8.00 8.25 7.75 8.00 Pass

3. The petitioner was dissatisfied with the marks she obtained in the subject “Social Movements in India”. She, therefore, applied for re-evaluation. Before the result of her re-evaluation, the date for the final semester in the Master of Arts for June 2017 examination was declared. She sat for the examination. After the final semester examination was over, the result of the examination was declared by the Sikkim University and her SGPA and CGPA for the final semester in Master of Arts for June 2017 examination in Sociology was as follows :

Semester I II III IV C.G.P.A. Grade

S.G.P.A. 8.00 8.25 8.00 7.50 7.94 A(A only)

4. When she received the grade card, she noticed that although SGPA awarded to her for the III semester was 7.75, in the grade card for the IV semester, the SGPA for the III semester was reflected as 8.00. She enquired from the Sikkim University and learnt that this increase from 7.75 to 8.00 for the III semester was due to re-evaluation and her marks had improved from 69 to 73 out of 100.

5. On 03.10.2019, the Sikkim University issued the corrected grade card of the III semester Master of Arts December 2016 examination to her in which for her paper “Social Movements in India”, she had secured 73 out of 100 and thus her SGPA and CGPA after her III semester were as follows :

Semester I II III C.G.P.A. Grade

S.G.P.A. 8.00 8.25 8.00 8.08 Pass

6. On 15.10.2019, a letter was written to the Head of the Department of Sociology of Sikkim University by the Controller of Examinations (respondent no.3) stating that the fifth convocation for conferment of degrees & awards of medals for the batch of 2017, 2018 and 2019 was going to be held in the first week of November 2019 and that the gold medal in the Master of Arts in Sociology for the batch of 2017 was to be awarded to respondent no.4 whose CGPA was only 7.56. After the petitioner learnt that the respondent no.4 who had secured less than her was being awarded the gold medal, the petitioner immediately approached the authorities with her grievances. She was then informed about the last sentence of Clause 10 of the Regulations on Conduct of Examinations (the impugned provision). On 25.10.2019, the petitioner wrote to the Registrar, Sikkim University (respondent no.2) and requested him to reconsider their decision for the award of gold medal. Neither the Sikkim University nor the respondents no. 2 or 3 responded. Instead, the gold medal was awarded to the respondent no.4.

7. The petitioner submits that Clause 10 of the Regulations is ultra vires the Constitution and is unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The decision of the Sikkim University not to award the gold medal to the petitioner is also unreasonable, arbitrary, and unfair, as it failed to consider that the result of a candidate becomes final only after re-evaluation. It is urged that the artificial barrier created between valuation and re-evaluation by Clause 10 of the Regulations do not stand the test of fairness or reasonableness required by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also urged that Clause 10 of the Regulations to the extent thereof