Regulatory compliance must prevail over individual claims for revaluation marks, despite sympathetic circumstances.

J U D G M E N T

The Review Petition is filed by the writ petitioner on certain grounds. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by Annexure-V Judgment rendered in a similar case, a Division Bench of this Court has recognised the award of one more mark, for the student therein, based on the revaluation. It is therefore, submitted that the situation herein is identical as the petitioner has also obtained one more mark consequent on the revaluation. If the said mark is reckoned, the petitioner who is now doing the M.B.A course will be able to pursue his studies. Reliance is placed on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C).No.33172/2003 and that of the Apex Court in Selin Mary Mammen v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others [ (2008) 17 SCC 615 ] to support the plea that if the person fell short by only one mark in the qualifying examination, direction can be issued to reckon the said mark for enabling the party concerned to pursue the course to which he has joined, based on the marks of the qualifying examination.

2. The writ petition, W.P.(C). No.35142/2009, was disposed of by Judgment dated 05/03/2010, directing the Vice Chancellor to take a decision on Ext.P23 representation therein.

3. The facts of the case show that while studying B.B.A course, the petitioner appeared for the Management Aptitude Test for admission to M.B.A course while he was undergoing the sixth semester course in B.B.A. The results of the B.B.A Examination showed that he failed in International Trade and Marketing, and Operations Management. Later, he sought for revaluation of the answer papers. There was an increase of six marks in respect of the paper International Trade and Marketing, i.e. the total marks obtained by him pursuant to revaluation will be 20. Now, the said mark could not be reckoned by the University since there was no difference of 4% of the total marks. The petitioner is now put in a severe predicament because of the above aspects.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that they cannot relax the guidelines for the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Vice Chancellor has already rejected the application of the petitioner.

5. Annexure-V Judgment and the decision of the Apex Court are relied upon by the petitioner to seek for a direction to the University to consider the matter again which is strongly opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the University. It is further submitted that Annexure-V Judgment was delivered on the peculiar facts of that case and cannot be taken as laying down a general principle. A reading of Annexure-V Judgment shows that the Division Bench was considering a case where the Upa Lok Ayukta had directed that the actual marks obtained on revaluation should be awarded to the Candidate. The University thereafter challenged the the order of the Upa Lok Ayukta in review which was dismissed. Challenging the above order, the University had filed W.P.(C). No.8206/2004. The writ petition filed by the University was allowed. It was taken in appeal before the Division Bench and, by Annexure-V Judgment, the Division Bench was of the view that in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would have been appropriate to decline interference when the ultimate result of the decision have landed a student in doldrums.

6. Therefore, the Division Bench rendered the said decision only on the particular facts of that case.

7. Herein, even though the reckoning of the revaluation marks will help the petitioner, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the University, they cannot relax the regulation in favour of a particular candidate.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Selin Mary Mammen's case [ (2008) 17 SCC 615 ]. A reading of paragraph (6) of the Judgment will show that relief was granted by exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution