The University's obligation to conduct revaluation promptly and publish the result, and the entitlement of aggrieved students to compensation for unjustifiable delays.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. The present litigation has a very sad story to narrate. The petitioner appeared in M.A. (Previous) Economics main examination as non-collegiate student conducted in the months of March-April, 1999. When the petitioner appeared in the examination he never did imagine that April would be cruelest month for him. The result of the examination was published on 29-7-2000. To the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner he found that he had secured zero in First Paper, "Advanced Economics Theory". As the petitioner had performed very well in the said paper and had fullest confidence that he would be securing high marks he applied for revaluation of the answer paper and as envisaged under the Rules governing the field deposited Rs. 200/- for the said purpose. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner had applied for revaluation within the prescribed period of time but as misfortune would have it the University did not show any response and the result of revaluation remained undeclared. With hope and expectation the petitioner approached the University authorities but none cared for his agony and the result of revaluation remained a mirage for him. When visits to the University authorities became an exercise in futility the petitioner knocked at the doors of this Court for grant of justice.

2. After the learned counsel for the University appeared in the writ petition the fortune of the petitioner had an open sesame and the result of revaluation was declared and it was revealed that the petitioner had secured three score and seven in the said subject. The story of the petitioner does not end here. Mr. Paresh Parcek, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the delay on the part of the University is unpardonable and if such an act of the University is exonerated the likes of the petitioner would harbour an unexlinguishable anguish in the core of their heart and the disillusionment would remain the same and his agony would be unredeemable. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that due to the inordinate delay on the part of the University the petitioner could not venture to sit in the M.P. SLET Examination, 1999 as well as in the year 2000. The learned counsel has referred to Clause 2.5 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Stariya Patrata Pariksha Niyam (Annexure P-3) which reads as under :--

2-5 e/;izns'k jkT; Lrjh; ik=rk ijh{kk 1999 esa lfEefyr gksus ds fy, ik=rk dh 'krsZa&

mEehnokj] ftUgksaus fdlh Hkh ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky; ls Lukrdkskj mikf/k ;k mlds led{k ijh{kk U;wure 55 izfr'kr vadksa ds lkFk mijksDr fo"k;ksa esa ls mkh.kZ dh gks] os bl ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus ds ik= gksaxsA os mEehnokj Hkh bl ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gks ldrs gS tks Lukrdkskj mikf/k dh mkjk/kZ dh ijh{kk ns jgs gSa] fdUrq mUgsa rHkh ik= ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;sxk tcfd os viuh Lukrdkskj mikf/k ijh{kk 55 izfr'kr ;k mlls vf/kd vad izkIr dj mkh.kZ gksaxs rFkk bl ijh{kk esa Hkh lQy gksaxsA os mEehnokj ftUgksus ijh{kk blh o"kZ esa mkhZ.kZ dh gS] ijUrq mUgsa bl o'kZ dh Lukrdkskj ijh{kk esa 55 izfr'kr vad izkIr ugha gq, gSa] os pqus tkus gsrq ik= ugha ekus tk,axsA rFkkfi ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ tks Lukrdkskj mikf/k ijh{kk esa vadksa dk izfr'kr lq/kkj dj 55 izfr'kr ls vf/kd vad izkIr djrk gS rk smls vuqxkeh LySV esa lfEefyr gksuk iM+sxkA

It is highlighted by Mr. Pareek that as the petitioner was awarded zero in the subject in question he never could conceive that he would get 55% in Post Graduation, and hence, he felt incapacitated to sit in M.P. SLET Examination.

Submission of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for University, is that the petitioner could have appeared in the examination as there is no prohibition in the Rule for the same. Whether the petitioner could have appeared in the aforesaid examination or not and whether Clause 2.5 can be interpreted in that regard relate to another issue. The fact remains that the petitioner felt incapacitated to appear in the aforesaid examination. The diffidence on the part of the petitio