Sushil Solanki vs University of Delhi and Another

Rajiv Sahai Sahai, J.—The Petitioner was a student of B. Sc. (Electronic Hons.) of Respondent No. 2 Maharaja Agrasen College affiliated to the Respondent No. 1 University. The Petitioner in the year 2009-2010 took the second year exam and though had an Essential Repeat (ER) in one of the papers, in accordance with the Rules/Policy of the Respondent No. 1 University was promoted to the third year.

The Petitioner applied for re-evaluation of his marks not only of the paper in which he had the ER but also of other papers in which he had earlier been declared passed. The result of re-evaluation declared in December, 2010, while maintaining the result of the Petitioner in the paper in which he had ER, also found the Petitioner to have failed in another paper/subject of Human Behaviour.

The Petitioner having failed in two papers, as per Rules/Policy was not entitled to be promoted to the third year and was accordingly not allowed to take internal assessment examination scheduled on 4th January, 2011 and aggrieved therefrom filed this petition.

The petition came up before this Court first on 3rd January, 2011 when subject to the final outcome, he was permitted to take the internal assessment examination.

The Petitioner himself has filed before this Court as Annexure P-7 at page 20, the Rules of the Respondent No. 1 University qua Re-evaluation. The said Rules inter alia provide that whenever a student applies for re-evaluation, he surrenders his original performance and is bound to accept the revised performance whether there is no change in the marks or there is an increase or decrease in the marks.

The counsel for the Petitioner however firstly contends that though the rules provide for the time of two weeks from declaration of results for applying for re-evaluation, but do not provide for any time for the University to declare the result on re-evaluation. It is contended that the result was declared after more than half of third year was also over, causing prejudice to the Petitioner. The counsel for the Respondent No. 1 University has informed that the delay in declaration of the result of re-evaluation occurs because the rules provide that if the award of the re-evaluator varies from the original award by more than 10% of the maximum marks, the answer scripts are to be examined by a second evaluator.

I am however of the opinion that the delay in declaration of the result of re-evaluation does not affect the Petitioner. Even if the result had been declared at the earliest in the months of August or September, 2010, the Petitioner still would have been entitled to repeat the second year only in the final examination scheduled in March-April, 2011. On enquiry it is informed that the Petitioner is not required to be assessed internally again for repeating the second year and the marks of internal assessment remain the same. It is stated that the Petitioner will have to appear in the exam scheduled in March-April, 2011 as an ex-student.

The counsel for the Petitioner expresses apprehension that the prescribed time for registration as an ex-student may have lapsed by now. The counsel for the Respondent No. 1 University fairly agrees that if that be so, the said time would be extended to enable the Petitioner to enroll as an ex-student and to repeat the second year main exams in the examination scheduled in March-April, 2011. The Petitioner is accordingly directed to take steps in this regard within fifteen days of today and if so takes the steps he will be so enrolled.

9.The counsel for the Petitioner has next contended that the rules for re-evaluation have no basis whatsoever; that the Petitioner was not required to surrender his result of the second year and thus the Petitioner is entitled to retain the result of the examination in the subject of Human Behaviour and gives up the result on re-evaluation failing him in the said subject also.

The counsel admits that the aforesaid is contrary to the rules. The Petitioner applied for re-evaluation being fully conscious of the rules therefore .The rules do not require physical surrender of the mark sheet of the examination of which re-evaluation is sought and the surrender is automatic upon applying for re-evaluation. The Petitioner having applied for re-evaluation under the rules cannot now on the result of re-evaluation being not palatable to him, renege therefrom.

In so far as the contention of the rules having no basis whatsoever is concerned, the counsel for the Respondent No. 1 University has rightly contended that the said rules have been framed by the Academic Council of the University in exercise of power to frame regulations u/s 32 of the Delhi University Act. The Petitioner now cannot be heard to challenge the said rules.

The Petitioner thus is not found entitled to now claim to retain his original marks in the subject of Human Behaviour and to give up the marks of re-evaluation failing him in the said subject.

There is no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed, save for the observation aforesaid. No order as to cots.

Dasti under signatures of court master.