Kamlinder Grewal and Others vs Punjab University and Others

G.C. Mital, J.—The petitioners appeared in M. A. Part II English Option, Paper 11, in the subject of Linguistics in April, 1990. There were three Sections of the paper, and each Section has more than two. questions and each candidate had to answer five question atleast one from cash Section. It transpired that in Section B of the paper all the questions were out of syllabus, as a result of which the petitioners did not answer any question from Section B.

During the examination, the examinees raised hue and cry and pointed out that Section B of the paper was put of syllabus. As a result, the Administrative Officer of the Examination Branch alongwith Professor Incharge was called to the Examination Hall. An assurance was given to the Examines that some compensation would be given on that account after the examination is over and they should proceed with the examination. Oh this assurance the petitioner and other student proceeded with the examination and since B section of the paper was out of syllabus they were not able to attend any question out of it. This contention of the petitioners has been admitted by the respondents in the return filed by them.

Thereafter the matter was taken up by the Board of Postgraduate Studies in English, vide Annexure R/7 on 6th June, 1990 and it was suggested to the Vice Chancellor that 30 per cent of the marks actually obtained by a student should be awarded as compensation but the Vice Chancellor did not agree with this on the reasoning as is contained in Para No. 5 of the written statement. The thinking of the Vice Chancellor was that the students who had taken Linguistics paper would get unfair advantage over other students who had appeared in other optional subjects. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioners have come to this Court for redressal of their grievance. It is not disputed before us that Section B was out of syllabus and that assurance was given to the student in the examination hall that some compensation would be given to them for the questions which were out of syllabus

As noticed earlier each student had to answer five questions and atleast one from each Section Since Section S was out of syllabus we will assume that the petitioners were not able to answer fifth question, which was compulsory for them to answer from that Section and they should be given compensation for not solving one question. Each question of said paper carried 20 marks. In this manner the petitioners have salved four questions carrying 80 marks and that should be proportionately enhanced to 100 marks. Thus, the marks obtained by the petitioners in four questions should be proportionately enhanced i.e. by 25 percent of the total marks actually obtained by each student. This will do justice to all without, in any way, giving unfair advantage to the students, who appeared in Linguistics paper, over other students, who appealed in other optional subjects.

Since it would be a decision of general nature, we direct that this benefit be given to all the students, who appeared in Linguistics paper irrespective of the fact whether they, have wire to the Court or not.

With this order and directions this petition is disposed of.