Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
V. BHARGAVA,B. D. GUPTA, JJ.
Gyan Chandra Mehrotra
Versus
University of Allahabad through Registrarand
Special Appeal No. 887 of 1962 against judgment of V.G. Oak, J., in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2602 of 1962
Decided On : 04-04-1963
UNIVERSITY - Examination - Scrutiny of answer books - Omission to allot marks for general impression - Power of Vice-Chancellor to rectify the omission - Allahabad University Act (III of 1921), Ss. 12(4), 12(7), 38(2) - Allahabad University Statutes, Ordinance 13, Chapter XXIX.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a candidate in the LL.B. Previous Examination of the Allahabad University, failed by one mark in the aggregate. On scrutiny of his answer books, the Vice-Chancellor found that there had been an omission to allot marks for general impression and directed the Dean of the Faculty of Law to allot the marks. Subsequently, the Vice-Chancellor reversed his order on the ground that he had made it under a mistaken impression that there had been an omission on the part of the examiner. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the Vice-Chancellor's order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor had the power to rectify the omission under Ordinance 13 of Chapter XXIX of the Allahabad University Statutes. The Court interpreted the Ordinance to include cases where there had been an omission to allot marks for general impression, even though there was no specific mention of such cases in the Ordinance. The Court also held that the Vice-Chancellor could not delegate his power to the Dean of the Faculty of Law to allot the marks. The Court further held that the Vice-Chancellor's subsequent order reversing his earlier order was not justified as he could not review his own order.
Issues: 1. Whether the Vice-Chancellor had the power to rectify the omission to allot marks for general impression under Ordinance 13 of Chapter XXIX of the Allahabad University Statutes? 2. Whether the Vice-Chancellor could delegate his power to the Dean of the Faculty of Law to allot the marks? 3. Whether the Vice-Chancellor's subsequent order reversing his earlier order was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor had the power to rectify the omission under Ordinance 13 of Chapter XXIX of the Allahabad University Statutes. The Court interpreted the Ordinance to include cases where there had been an omission to allot marks for general impression, even though there was no specific mention of such cases in the Ordinance. The Court reasoned that marks for general impression were also marks to be awarded on the basis of answers recorded by the candidate to all the questions answered, and any omission to allot such marks should be treated as a failure to allot marks for all the questions as a whole. 2. The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor could not delegate his power to the Dean of the Faculty of Law to allot the marks. The Court reasoned that the Statutes required appointment of examiners and left to the discretion or judgment of the examiners as to how many marks should be allotted to each candidate in each examination paper or parts of it. It was for an examiner to decide how many marks should be given for each question or part of a question and it was also for him to decide in exercise of his judgment as to how many marks were to be given for general impression. 3. The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor's subsequent order reversing his earlier order was not justified as he could not review his own order. The Court reasoned that the Vice-Chancellor's earlier order was made after he had found that there had been an omission to allot marks for general impression. The Vice-Chancellor could not subsequently review his own order on the basis of circumstances brought to his notice subsequently.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the appeal and directed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the University containing a direction that the Vice-Chancellor of the University should arrange for rectification of the omission to award marks for general impression in the case of the appellant in the light of the Court's observations.
V. BHARGAVA, J. :- This appeal has been filed by Gyan Chandra Mehrotra against the dismissal of a petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the month of May 1962 the appellant appeared as a candidate at the LL.B. Previous Examination of the Allahabad University in which he was required to answer seven papers including one paper on Law of Easements and Torts. In each of the papers he obtained marks which were in excess of the minimum of 36 per cent required in order to qualify him for being declared a successful candidate. The Ordinance further laid, down that in order to succeed he had to obtain a minimum of 50 per cent marks in the aggregate. The total marks being 700, a minimum of 350 marks in the aggregate was needed by him to be declared successful. In fact only 349 marks were assigned to him so that he was not included amongst the list of successful candidates. The contention of the appellant in the petition was that he in fact secured more than 350 marks in the examination and consequently he prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, the University of Allahabad and the Registrar of the University to rectify the mistake and declare the appellant as a candidate who had passed the LL.B. Previous Examination.
2. The case was contested on behalf of the respondents and counter-affidavits were filed. In the counter-affidavit the marks obtained by the appellant in the various papers ware disclosed. It appears that in the charts prepared showing the marks obtained by this appellant there was no mention of any marks received by him for general impression in the paper on law of Easements and Torts. It seems that since the appellant had failed by only one mark in the aggregate it was held by the Vice-Chancellor that the answer books of the appellant had to be scrutinised by him in consultation with the Head of the Department under Ordinance 13 of Chapter 29 which runs as follows :
"13. The answer books of a candidate who fails by not more than three; marks in any one subject, or in any one paper (in examinations in which minimum pass marks are required in individual paper), or by not more than six marks in the aggregate of ail the subjects shall be scrutinised by the Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Head of the Department concerned, with a view to check if any question or part of a question has been left unmarked or if a mistake has been made in the addition of marks and to arrange for the rectification of such omission or mistake."
3. On a scrutiny being made, the Vice-Chancellor came to the finding that there had been an omission to allot marks for general impression in this paper and further held that he had to arrange for the rectification of the omission. On the recommendation of the Dean and the Registrar, the Vice-Chancellor, in these circumstances, agreed that marks for general impression may be allotted by the Dean to the appellant and the other candidates similarly circumstanced. The position was that in the paper on the law of Easements and Torts the maximum marks prescribed were 100 and there was a note that the six questions which had to be answered each carried equal marks, while 4 marks were reserved for general impression. The Registrars proposal, founded on the basis of a report of the Dean, of the faculty, of Law, was that each candidate should be awarded marks for general impression in proportion to the marks received in the various questions. On scrutiny of the appellants paper books it was found that he had been allotted marks for answers to each question, but there was no note at all to indicate whether any marks had been awarded to him for general impression. The Vice-Chancellor having directed the Dean to award the marks, the Dean awarded 2 marks to the appellant. This was in proportion to the marks received by the appellant in the various questions. Subsequently, a letter was issued by the Registrar to the examiner inviting his attention to the 4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
