Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology vs Anupama Arya

K. P. Bhandari, J.—This judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 697 of 1986 and Civil Writ Petition No. 6251 of 1986. The Bench admitting the Writ Petition directed that the writ petition be heard alone with the letters patent appeal, as common question of law is involved in both of them. For facility of reference, only the facts of Letters Patent Appeal No. 697 of 1980 are being mentioned.

This is a letters patent appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 4187 of 1986 (Anupama v. Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala) decided on 19.9.1986. The writ-petitioner was a candidate for B. Sc. Part I (Non-Medical) Examination, She appeared in the examination. The result was declared on 7-6-1986. According to the result, she secured 530 marks out of 650 marks According to the University Rules, she was entitled to apply for revaluation of the answer books. The Petitioner applied for revaluation of her result. As a result of the revaluation, her result was modified and it was declared that she obtained 544 marks. This result was declared on 18-7-1986.

The petitioner applied for admission to the course of Bachelor of Engineering in Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala. The Selection Committee constituted by the Institute called the petitioner for interview on 23-7-1986. She produced before the Selection Committee the marks sheet prepared as a result of the revaluation. The appellant Institute adopted the formula of normalization of marks for determining the comparative merit of the candidates for admission to the aforesaid course. According to this formula of normalization of marks, if the marks obtained by the petitioner on revaluation, i.e., 544 marks out of total of 650 marks, were taken into account, her percentage of marks would be 87.99. However, the Selection Committee did not take into consideration the revaluated marks and prepared the percentage on the basis of the original marks obtained by the petitioner, i.e. 530 marks out of total 650 marks, On that basis at her percentage was worked out as 8551. On the basis of percentage of 87.99 the petitioner would be entitled to be placed at serial No, 14 in the merit list Consequently, she would be entitled to be admitted to the course of Electronics and Electrical Communication Engineering or Electronics (Instrumentation and Control) Engineering. As a result of wrong merit: list prepared by the Institute, she was offered admission to the course of Electrical Engineering. She approached this Court by means of Civil Writ Petition No. 4187 of 1986 under Article 226 of the Constitution, for a direction to the Institute that her merit be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by her on revaluation.

According to the stand taken by the Institute in the written statement, if the revaluated marks were to be entertained after the last date of submission of applications for admission, it would cause inconvenience to the Institute of finalizing the merit list for admission.

The learned Single Judge has examined all the contentions raised by the parties in great detail. He referred to the Division Bench judgments in Lalit Taor v. Nagpur University, Nagpur and Ors. AIR 1286 Bom. 255 and Ku. Sadhana Vs. Vikram University, Ujjain and Others, . These authorities clearly lays down chat as a result of revaluation if there is any increase or decrease in the original marks, the same are binding on the students. The marks obtained as a result of revalation is the final marks sheet, The learned Single judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the marks obtained as a result of revaluation have to be taken into consideration for preparing the final merit list. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge In this behalf. Counsel for the appellant could not. successfully challenge the correctness of the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, which is fortified by two High Courts. No judgment to the contrary was cited at the hearing of the case The counsel for the appellant repeatedly said that it will cause great inconvenience if the revaluated marks (which marks sheet has been received by the candidate after the last date of submission of applications) are taken into account We are not impressed by this argument The career of a student depends upon the percentage of marks received by him in examination. If there is any mistake in the original marks sheet and the same has been corrected as a result of revaluation, the same has to be given effect to. The valuable rights of a student cannot be sacrificed merely because some inconvenience is caused to the appellant-Institute,

There is another aspect of the matter which may also be mentioned. This case relates to the admission for the year 1986 The respondent has already studied for three years and is going to complete her course shortly. We cannot allow to upset the studies of the respondent on these technicalities.

In view of the above, the letters patent appeal is dismissed,

As regards the Writ Petition No. 6251 of 1986, it may be mentioned that the Bench, admitting the writ petition, directed that the writ petition be heard along with Letters- patent Appeal No. 697 of 1986. Thereafter, the writ petitioner moved C M. No. 751 of 1988, wherein the Division Bench constituted by V. Ramaswami, Chief Justice and Ujagar Singh, L. directed the Institute that the writ petitioner should be admitted provisionally in the branch of Mechanical Engineering on merit. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was admitted in the speciality of Mechanical Engineering, the subject for which he initially applied on the basis of merit We have already held, while disposing of the letters patent appeal, that the merit list should be prepared on the basis of the marks secured by the candidate on revaluation. On the basis of marks obtained by the candidates on revalvation, he was entitled to be admitted to Mechanical Engineering and was ordered by the Division Bench on 4-2-1988 to be admitted provisionally in that speciality. The Writ-petitioner has already appeared in the examination. We direct that his result should be declared within two weeks. Writ Petition No. 6251 of 1986 is accordingly allowed.

Consequently, Letters Patent No. 697 of 1986 is dismissed and Civil Writ Petition No. 6251 of 1986 is allowed with no order as to costs.