Satish Kumar vs Jammu University

What is required to be interpreted in this writ petition is a condition enumerated at page 26 of the Brochure. For facility of reference, this is

being reproduced below:

Having participated and performed as member of the contingent of an affiliated college/ university department in any sole/ group item in a

competition namely ""Display Your Talent"" organised by concerned wing of the University, securing First Position 8.0

Second Position 7.0

Third Position 6.0

Certificate of merit 4.0

It is a fact that the petitioner participated in an event namely ""Display Your Talent"". The team of which he was a member, was awarded first

place. The petitioner was also awarded the first place. The petitioner submits that as a team was awarded first place, therefore, he is entitled to the

benefit of eight marks on that count. He also submits that he is also entitled to further benefit of eight marks on the grounds that he was individually

also able to get the first position.

This plea of the petitioner is being contested by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to only one benefit and the total

marks which can be given to him are those which are indicated in the above condition i.e. eight.

I am of the opinion, that the interpretation placed by the University cannot be faulted.

The petitioner's position has to be adjudicated on the basis of group performance. He has been allowed eight marks. The method which the

petitioner wants to be adopted in this case is that he should be recognized for his individual talent as also for the team event. This is plainly not the

implication for the clause reproduced herein above. The benefit has to be given only for group item. The petitioner has been given benefit for the

group event and not for his individual effort. In the group no doubt the petitioner was given first position, but this position he got on account of his

having participated in a team. Independently of the team he has no existence. Thus what is required to be seen is the merit obtained in the group

event and if incidentally in that group, somebody happens to get higher position, then he is not to get double benefit. This is the only manner in

which this regulation has to be interpreted. If this be the position, then no ground is made out for interference.

6 Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgement of this court given in OWP No. 877/98 decided on 1.1.1999. In that decision

all that has been observed is that some benefit is required to be given for one sports event. The aforementioned judgement would not apply to the

facts of this case. The interpretation which has been placed by the respondent University is the correct view of looking into the matter.

This petition as such is found to be without merit and is dismissed.