Vs. Kurukshetra University & Anr  Insc 26 (18 January 2002)
Lahoti & K.G. Balakrishnan R.C. Lahoti, J.
petitioner, appeared in B.Sc. (Home Science) Part-I examination conducted by Kurukshetra
University, the respondent No.1, which was held in the month of April, 2000, as
a regular student of Govt. College, Panchkula, the respondent No.2. On
7.8.2000, the result was declared and the petitioner was declared 'failed'. A
provisional detailed marks card, dispatched by the university to the college,
was received by the college on 20.8.2000 and collected by the petitioner on
21.8.2000. On 13.9.2000, the petitioner applied for re- evaluation. It was
rejected on the ground that the application for re- evaluation was made beyond
the time prescribed therefor. The petitioner sought for a reconsideration of
the rejection but the university vide its communication dated 3.11.2000
informed the petitioner that not only the application was received late but the
prayer for re-evaluation was not entertainable because the petitioner's
original detailed marks card ('DMC', for short) was not received uptill then.
marks card issued by the university reached the college on 6.11.2000 and
collected by the petitioner on the same day.
again, on 8.11.2000, the petitioner submitted re-evaluation application
accompanied by original detailed marks card now available with the petitioner.
The application was entertained by the respondents. The university took about
two months' time for completing the process of re-evaluation and vide
communication dated 17.1.2001, received by the petitioner on 20.1.2001, the
petitioner was declared 'pass' having secured 56% marks. On 22.1.2001 the
petitioner applied to the Principal of the college for giving her admission in
B.Sc. Pt.II class which was refused on the ground of inordinate delay on the
part of the petitioner in seeking admission. On the same day the petitioner
approached the Vice- Chancellor of the university also but her prayer met with
a summary rejection only.
lost all hopes of redressal of her grievance by the respondents, the petitioner
approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh by filing a writ petition. On
1.2.2001, the High Court issued rule nisi and also directed the respondents, by
an interim order, to grant provisional admission to the petitioner subject to
further orders of the court. The petitioner commenced her course of study
taking the classes regularly ever since the date of her admission under the
orders of the court. The respondent allowed her to appear in the examination
but only as a private candidate.
her result was not declared. She moved an application in her pending writ
petition soliciting interim direction of the High Court to the respondents for
declaring her result. The High Court took up the application for consideration
on 14.9.2001 but disposed of the writ petition itself by dismissing the same
forming an opinion that there was no merit in the petition on the ground that
the application for re- evaluation was submitted neither within 20 days of the
publication of the result nor within 20 days of the dispatch of the detailed
marks card. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, this petition
seeking special leave to appeal has been filed.
relevant part of Clause 18 of Ordinance IV of the University Calendar-Vol.II,
framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 11(5) of the Kurukshetra
University Act, 1986 reads as under:- "18.1 A candidate for examination in
theory papers will be allowed to have the answer books in theory papers
re-evaluated on submission of applications on the prescribed form accompanied
by the original detailed marks card and the re- evaluation fee within 20 days
of the date of declaration of the result of the particular examination or
within 20 days of the date of dispatch of the detailed marks card by the
University office whichever is later." xxx xxx xxx A bare reading of the abovesaid
provision shows the error committed by the High Court. An application for
re-evaluation to be valid has to be
by original detailed marks card and the full fee, and
in university office either within 20 days of the date of the declaration of
the result or within 20 days of the date of dispatch of the detailed marks card
by the university office, whichever is later.
the application moved by the appellant was accompanied by provisional marks
card. The stand taken by the university in its communication dated 3.11.2000
itself shows that in the absence of original DMC, the university was not
prepared to treat the appellant's prayer for re-evaluation entertainable. In
any case the relevant clause itself provides for an extended period of
limitation available to an applicant by permitting him to take advantage of one
of the two events marking commencement of limitation whichever occurs later.
The appellant was, therefore, justified in making a prayer for re-evaluation
within 20 days of the dispatch of the detailed marks card. Such application being
a valid application and filed within the period of limitation (in fact, within
two days) could not have been declined by the university. The appellant cannot
be faulted for the delay on the part of the university in declaring the result,
despatching the DMC and re-evaluating the appellant's answer books. The
appellant has taken all the steps promptly and in the facts and circumstances
of the case we cannot form an opinion, even prima facie, that there has been
any delay, remissness or laches on the part of the appellant in taking any step
either in approaching the respondents or the High Court. We are told that the
result of B.Sc. (H.Sc.) Part II is yet to be declared officially by the
respondents and for want of such result being declared, the appellant has not
been allowed admission in B.Sc.(H. Sc.) Part III.
we are of the opinion that the appellant should be treated as a regular student
of B.Sc.(H.Sc.) Part II and her result should also be declared treating her as
a regular student. However, the difficulty arises in allowing her admission in
B.Sc.(H.Sc.) Part III course of study as a regular student. The learned counsel
for the respondents have submitted that major part of the educational year is
over, the appellant has not attended the lectures, not taken the practicals and
there will be shortage of attendance which cannot be condone or regularized. On
the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant should not be made to suffer for no fault of hers and the situation
created either by the respondents or by the time lost in litigation. He further
submitted that the Vice- Chancellor of the university has power to condone the
delay and take an appropriate decision suited to the circumstances of an
individual case so as to remove injustice done to an individual student.
no specific provision in this regard or any precedent has been brought to our
notice by either of the parties.
facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the following
directions would meet the ends of justice:-
appellant shall be treated as a regular student of B.Sc.(H.Sc.) Pt.II course of
study and the result of her examination shall be declared forthwith;
appellant shall apply to the Vice Chancellor of the university or any other
authority competent in this behalf seeking admission in B.Sc.(H.Sc.) Pt.III
course of study and invoking power, if there be any under the act, ordinance or
statutes governing the university, to condone the delay in seeking admission.
Else the appellant shall be entitled to admission in B.Sc.(H.Sc.) Pt.III course
of study commencing in the next session.
order accordingly and dispose of the appeal in the terms abovesaid. No order as
to the costs.
LAHOTI ) J.