IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

202 Date of Decision: 01.09.2025 MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY AND ANR ...Appellants Versus ASHOK SINGH AND ANOTHER ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. N.K. Chhokar, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, the writ petition (CWP-21147-2020) preferred by respondent No.1 has been allowed with the costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the appellant-University and a direction has been given that the degree of respondent No.1 will be treated to have been competed in the year 2015-16, on the ground that the same is perverse to the facts on record.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- University submits that in the present case, while respondent No.1 appeared for an examination in subject code 3117 in the year 2015, he was awarded 07 grace marks to clear the said paper, for which grace marks he was not entitled for as in subject code 3114, said candidate had already been given

11 grace marks and more than 12 grace marks in total could not have been given, which fact was ignored by the outsourcing agency, which had been given a contract to compile the examination result. Learned counsel further submits that as and when the mistake came to the notice of the appellant- University, the same was rectified by withdrawing the grace marks given in subject code 3117 but the learned Single Judge has held that the rectification of the result of subject code 3117 without giving notice is incorrect and therefore, the result with the grace marks in subject code 3114 should have been treated to be final so as to treat the award of the B.Tech. degree in favour of respondent No.1 from the year 2015-16.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that no prejudice has been shown by respondent No.1 for not-serving of the notice, as concededly the grace marks in subject code 3117 were given beyond the entitlement of the candidate. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even otherwise, the direction given by the learned single judge that the petitioner should have deemed to have completed his B.Tech. Degree in the year 2015-2016 is incorrect, as he has passed the remaining papers of B.Tech. course in the year 2016-17 hence even otherwise, the degree could not have been granted as per the direction given by the learned Single Judge from 2015-16.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 was declared passed in the subject code of 3117 while appearing in the 5^th semester of B.Tech. (Civil Engineering)

course in the year 2015, respondent No.1 is entitled to keep the said result intact and the same could not have been withdrawn by the appellant- University on the ground that respondent No.1 was declared passed after the grant of 07 grace marks for which he was not entitled. Learned counsel further submits that though, it is correct that all the papers for giving him the degree of B.Tech (Civil Engineering) were cleared in the session 2016-17, the judgment of the learned single judge can be modified to the extent that the degree should be given from the year 2016-17. Learned counsel respondent No.1 further submits that even otherwise, the subject code of 3117 has again been cleared by the petitioner in the year 2019 and therefore, the directions given by the learned Single Judge were perfectly valid and legal and the appeal filed by the appellant-University may kindly be dismissed.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.

6. It may be noticed that a minimum standard of 40 marks has been prescribed for clearing a particular subject by the University, which needs to be adhered to i