Hiria Farooqi vs University of Kashmir and Another

S.K. Gupta, J.—Petitioner passed her M.A. Final examination in English Literature from the University of Kashmir, Srinagar, in the year

1991 as a regular candidate. She appeared under Roll No. 2088 of 99 and secured 51 % marks in aggregate. The petitioner also availed statutory

chance in December and appeared in two papers and improved upon her earlier result in the said papers obtaining 54.25% marks in aggregate.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition and claims the following reliefs;

(a) Direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding respondents to re-evaluate the petitioner's answer script in the paper of ""American

Fiction"" in M. A. English Examination held during the annual session of 2000.

(b) In the alternative, to allow the petitioner to re-appear in the paper of ""American Fiction"" or any other paper in M.A. English to improve her

division/ percentage of marks in her M. A. Examination.

(c) To issue a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding respondents to register the petitioner in M. Phil in the department of English

during the current Session or the next following session.

It is admitted case of the petitioner that after passing her M.A. Final Examination in English Literature, she appeared in two subjects for

improving her division/percentage in the year 2000. It is also admitted that she improved upon the earlier result and obtained 54.25% in aggregate.

Mr. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, did not dispute that as per the University Statute, there is no provision for evaluation of

the papers and his request for the same made earlier had been turned down. The scheme for re-evaluation of the answer scripts came to be

introduced in the year 2002 and made effective from the academic Session of 2002. Learned counsel admitted that as per the statute the petitioner

can be given only one chance within two years from the passing of the degree examination for improvement of percentage, which the petitioner has

already availed. The statute of the University had fixed 55% marks for registration in M.Phil on course whereas the petitioner has obtained, after

improvement, 54.25% marks in aggregate.

The stand of the respondent in their objections, is that since the petitioner has availed the chance by appearing in two papers in the year 2000

for making improvement upon her result, no further chance can be allowed under the Statute. Further stand of the respondents is that there was no

scheme for reevaluation of the papers in the year 2000 when the petitioner applied and her request rejected. Further submission of the respondents

is that the petitioner could not be allowed registration in M.Phil as she could not obtain 55% marks in qualifying examination prescribed by the

Statute.

Mr. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently urged that since there is no express bar in the University Statute for re-

evaluation and allowing another chance to the petitioner to appear in the examination in order to improve upon her result, it was neither proper nor

appropriate for the University to reject her application.

This contention, though attractive, cannot be accepted for obvious reason that when Statute provide one chance to re-appear within two years

to improve upon the result, second chance is barred by implication by the Statute itself. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioner has not

challenged any of the Statutes of the University prescribing one chance to a candidate to re- appear after passing the examination in order to

improve his percentage, or the rules and Statutes fixing 55% marks for registration in M.Phil course. It is well settled proposition of law that the

petitioner is bound by the rules and Statutes of the University unless challenged in the court of law. The petitioner has already availed of the benefits

which were available to her under the rules and Statutes. No in justice has been caused to the petitioner by refusal for re- evaluation and for

availing another chance to re-appear, what was not provided in the rules or Statute.

It is apt to point out that to fix the percentage for registration to M. Phil, is the domain of the University. This percentage is fixed in looking to

various factors including academic atmosphere in the University and to maintain excellence in the standard of education.

The petitioner has failed to carve out a prima-facie justifiable cause to maintain the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there

is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.