Kanwaljeet Pal Singh vs Kurukshetra University and Others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—By virtue of the present writ petition, petitioner Kanwaljeet Pal Singh seeks a direction declaring the action of the respondents in reducing and revising the result of the petitioner of B.A. III and declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the migration certificate to the petitioner to be illegal, arbitrary and mala-fide.

The facts alleged are that petitioner was a regular student of B.A III in D.A.V. College, Cheeka, District Kaithal. He appeared in final examination of B.A III held by the Kurukshetra University in April, 1995. His result was declared and he was shown to have secured 600 marks out of 1200 (50%). The petitioner had been issued detail marks sheet in June, 1995. After completing his Graduation, he appeared in LL.B entrance test conducted by the Punjabi University, Patiala. The minimum qualification for the entrance test was B.A. with 50% marks. He was given the necessary roll number and the entrance test was held on 6.7.1995. The petitioner was declared successful and was admitted to LL.B course in Punjabi University, Patiala.

The petitioner asked for his migration certificate from Kurukshetra University. On 21.11.1995 he received registered letter from the Principal of the D.A.V. College. The petitioner was asked to submit his detail marks sheet. The letter issued by the Kurukshetra University to the Principal, D.A.V. College was also attached. It disclosed that a fresh detail marks sheet was to be issued to the petitioner because his result has to be revised. His marks had been reduced.

The petitioner''s case is that he never applied for re-evaluation after his result was declared in June, 1995. He had secured 50% marks but the University revised the result of its own after the petitioner had regularly been admitted in Punjabi University. Now he had been shown to have secured 589 marks out of 1200. The action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary on the grounds that firstly the marks could not be reduced and secondly the migration certificate could not have been refused after the petitioner had been admitted by stating all the facts in Punjabi University for LL.B course.

In the written statement filed, the petition as such had been contested. It has been asserted that the petitioner was well aware before he take the LL.B entrance examination that result card issued to him requires a revision. On 29.6.1995 a letter had been issued to the petitioner in this regard. It is before the entrance test held on 6.7.1995. The petitioner had been asked to return the detail marks card. He did not do so though he made all the enquiries from the University office about it. Thus ,he cannot take advantage of his own wrong. Respondent No. 1 (Kurukshetra University) acted within the Rules and Regulations. It has the power to rectify the mistake under clause F (Rectification of Results) Volume II of the Kurukshetra University Calendar. It was followed by a number of letters but the petitioner had paid no heed.

It has been explained that while compiling the result, the University received double awards in the subject of Hindi Compulsory awarding 48 and 55 marks against Roll No. 219436. The official of the University posted 55 marks against Roll No.219426 and 48 marks against Roll No. 219436. It was on basis of this award list sent-by the Examiner in the serial order. On 21.6.1995 the double award was reconciled by the Secrecy Branch of the University. It was found that in fact Roll No. 219436 is actually getting 55 marks instead of 48 marks and roll No. 219426 is getting 48 marks instead of 55 marks. It was in pursuance of the same that a notification was issued that petitioner to getting 589 marks. In fact statutory marks were earlier given to the petitioner for placing him in second division as per the University Rules. So four grace marks plus 7 marks which were found posted against his roll number were reduced, it was reiterated that the petitioner had been visiting the office of the University even before he took the entrance test. He was told about the discrepancy but he did not return the detailed marks sheet. Since the petitioner failed to return the detailed marks, he was not issued migration certificate. It is not in controversy that the petitioner did not apply for reevaluation but the mistake was detected and the detailed marks sheet was corrected.

Rejoinder was filed in which the petitioner reiterated his assertions. He denied that he was ever informed about the mistake or that he has to return his detail marks sheet.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two material submissions; (a) that the petitioner had never been informed before he was admitted in Punjabi University, Patiala in LL.B course that he has to submit the detail marks sheet or that there has been correction. Thus, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and (b) he had submitted correct facts to the Punjabi University and had studied there for 3 years. At this stage, therefore, he should not be refused the migration certificate and in this process he would lose admission in Punjabi University in LL.B course.

Clause 24, Volume II of the University Calendar at page 438 deals with the rectification of results. It reads :-

"F-Rectification of Results

The Vice-Chancellor shall have power to quash the result of a candidate after it has been declared if:-

i) xx xx xx xx ii) a mistake is found in his result

xx xx xx xx."

It is in pursuance of this power that once the mistake is stated to have been detected, the detail marks sheet and consequently the result of the petitioner required a change. Indeed there was a mistake. This should have been corrected. It is not shown that if there was any mala fide in this regard.

On behalf of the respondents as already pointed, the contention raised is that the petitioner had been informed vide letter dated 29.6.1995 about revision of his result of B.A. III. The copy of the said letter had been produced as Annexure R-l/1 and the same reads:-

To

Kanwal Jit Pal Singh.

Subject: Withholding of Roll No. Result of the Examination B.A.II1.

Roll No. 21946 April 1995 Reference your admission to the above mentioned Examination.

You are informed that your result for the said examination has been revised of B.A III Examination bearing Roll No. 219426 as there is some mistake.

You are therefore directed to submit/furnish the above documents/information to the undersigned (by name) immediately failing which your result will not be released.

Sd/- Superintendent (Exam-I) for Assistant Registrar (Exam-I)

It was followed by other letters on the same subject while the petitioner contends that he had not been informed in this regard and on basis of the earlier marks sheet he had taken the entrance test in Punjabi University.

Respondent No. 1-University was required to submit the original record. It had produced the said record and it reveals that a carbon copy of Annexure R. 1/1 is available and certificate of posting pertaining to sending of the letter to the petitioner at his village address in District Kaithal is also on the record. It is well known that a correctly addressed letter would be delivered to the addressee in the ordinary course of affairs. There is no extra ordinary happening shown as to why the ordinary course of events were not followed. Bare denial which would be purposeful would not rebut the said presumption.

It has further been asserted that the petitioner was aware of the said fact. He had been visiting the office of the University and making enquiry. But he did not return the detail marks sheet and continued with his entrance examination for LL.B course in Punjabi University, Patiala. It has already been noted in the preceding paragraphs that the petitioner had been sent the required notice and had been informed that there has been correction in his detailed marks sheet. One is, therefore, not surprised that he ignored the same because he wanted to take the entrance examination of LL.B. Therefore, he cannot be heard to state that he had not been informed before he took the entrance examination.

As regards the second contention, it is true that the writ petition had been filed in the year 1996 and that the had stated correct facts to the Punjabi University on basis of the old marks sheet. But as noted above the facts precipitated are that the petitioner was aware that his detail marks sheet was subject to correction. Having come to know and visiting the respondent University, he cannot be allowed now to play the tune of delay in this regard. Compassion in this regard would be totally misplaced. Once a person knows the correct facts and ignores them to take certain advantage, then he cannot be allowed to retrace the steps and urge that since long years have passed, he should be allowed to continue the studies. If this was so, many youngster would let this trap laid for this benefit to be reaped subsequently. Indeed it is not fair to do so. It was a calculated risk which the petitioner had taken. But the law in this regard would not come to his rescue.

For these reason, the writ petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed. No order as to costs.