Mala Chawla vs Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar

Petitioner Mala Chawla daughter of Hargobind Chawla has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the decision of the University dt. 10th Nov. 1986 (Annexure P-2), by which, result of the petitioner in the ''Improvement Case'' has been cancelled, and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent University to declare her result of M.A. (Part II) in Fine Arts (Improvement Case).

Briefly stated, the petitioner passed M.A. (Part I) Examination in Fine Arts (Drawing and Painting) from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, in Aug. 1984, securing 228 marks out of 400 marks. Thereafter, she appeared in M.A. (Part II). Examination in May, 1985, and passed the same securing 249 marks out of 400 marks. Thus, in total she secured 477 marks out of 800 marks, that is, 3 marks less than 480 which are minimum marks, for the First Division. Guru Nanak Dev University has made a provision in their Ordinances for permitting students to improve their Divisions by, re-appearing in the same examination. The petitioner, in order to improve her Division From Second to First, submitted her Admission Form to the respondent University in Nov. 1985 and deposited the requisite fee. The examination was to be held in April, 1986, for which the forms were to be submitted in Nov. 1985. After all the procedural formalities were completed, the University issued Roll No. 16001 to the petitioner for appearing in the examination. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in April, 1986, and, as per her own assessment and belief, her performance was upto her satisfaction and she was most likely to succeed in her mission of improving the Division from Second to First. However, when the result was declared in Nov. 1986, the University cancelled the result of t he petitioner without assigning any reason, vide impugned communication dt. 10th Nov. 1986 (Annexure P-2). In reply to her letter dt. 10th Dec. 1986, the University intimated to the petitioner on 29th Jan. 1987 (Annexure P-3), that the case had been examined by the Controller of Examinations and she could not improve the Division as she had already passed M.A. Part 11 (Fine Arts) in Second Division with more than 55 per cent marks. It is against this decision of the University communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure P-2 and P-3 that she has approached this Court for getting her result declared in the ''Improvement Case'', which examination she has already taken.

In reply to the writ petition, the Deputy Registrar, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, has filed thereturn in which reliance has been placed on the Ordinances of the University to justify the action of the respondent that candidates could be permitted to improve their performance only up to 55 per cent marks and not higher. It is further stated that the respondent-University has never allowed in the past any candidate to further improve the Score/Division who has already got 55 per cent or more marks in the examination.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after examining their pleadings and the material on the record, I am of the considered view that the action of the respondent-University in cancelling the result of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. Once the petitioner has been permitted to appear in the examination for the second time to improve her performance in which examination she believes to have fared well and is sanguine to secure First Division, the University authorities have no jurisdiction in law to cancel the result. There is no question of eligibility of the petitioner for re-appearing in the examination, as she has already qualified M.A. Part-1 and (Part II) Examinations in Fine Arts by securing 477 marks out of 800 marks. Moreover, there is no exception or disqualification laid down in the rules and regulations of the University by operation of which a candidate may be debarred from improving his/her performance from Second Division to First Division. References to the Ordinances made in the return are all enabling provisions without any embargo having been created against those candidates who have secured more than 55 per cent marks. Therefore, the impugned action of the University in cancelling the result of the petitioner is hereby struck down.

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a rule or regulation which debars a candidate securing more than 55 per cent marks from improving his/her performance from Second Division to First Division, that is, from 55 per cent to 60 per cent, such a condition would be wholly discriminatory and arbitrary in the eye of law. Any such condition, if imposed, would amount to putting premium on less merit as candidates with higher merit will be at a discount and at a disadvantage so far as the right to appear for the second time as an ''Improvement Case'' is concerned.

Finally, viewing it from another angle when the petitioner had submitted her Admission Form and deposited the admission fee to appear as an ''Improvement Case'', she was never told by the respondent-University that she was not eligible to improve her Division as she passed her M.A. Examination in Second Division by securing more than 55 per cent marks. Now, when she has appeared in the examination, it would be wholly unfair and unjust on the part of the University to cancel her result. I am fortified in this view by the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur Ors. Vs. Karnataka University and Another, , in which P. N. Bhagwati, C.J., and R. S. Pathak, J., as his Lordship then was, have been pleased to hold as under: --

"....Now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the Engineering Degree Course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more upon the Engineering Colleges which granted admission than upon the appellants. It is quite possible that the appellants did not know that neither the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan nor the first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was recognised as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore. The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the Engineering Colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these Engineering Colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these Engineering Colleges,"

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned communications dt. 10th Nov. 1986 (Annexure P-2) and 29th Jan. 1987(Annexure P-3) are quashed and a writ of mandamus is issued directing Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, to declare the result of the petitioner as ''Improvement Case'' within a fortnight from today. There shall be no order as to costs.