mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 4154 of2008 PETITIONER Ku. Sapna Mittal RESPONDENTS VERSUS Guru Ghasidas University & others. Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on .%?.'.09.2009. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihbtri Judge •w- Ip'1 i S :t i •.j ^j^;-):f JESH [S-TWI sa;'^tE3;U.'*iilM»^i H BS HIGH CQURT_OF CHHAJ'TISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (0 No. 4154 of 2008 Ku. Sapna Mittal D/o Pawan Kumar Mittal, aged about 23 years, R/o Mittal Kirana Store, Sawariya Bhawan, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Guru Ghasidas University Through - The Vice Chancellor, Gum Ghasidas University Campus, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. The Registrar (Exam.) Guru Ghasidas Univeersity, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Deputy Registrar (Exam.) Gum Ghasidas University, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Principal, Kishori Mohan Tripathi, Govt. Girls College, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri AshishShrivastava, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 4. JUDGMENT (Passed on Ji^.. day ofSeptember, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-University to issue a fresh mark-sheet as per the previous prospectus and declare the petitioner pass in the M.Com (Previous) exatnination held in March-April, 2007. •w. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was the regular studentofM.Com (Previous) of the college-respondent No. 4. The petitioner submitted her examination fonn and fhe intemal assessment was held as per the schedule of the University m the month of Febmary, 2007. The timetableofM.Com (Previous) for the academic '•ITI!. .-^' 3. < 4. session 2006-2007 (Annexure P/2) was declared and the examination started &om 13th ofMarch, 2007, and ended on the 17"' April, 2007. Thereafter, the result was declared on the 16 June, 2007 (Annexure P/3), wherein. the petitioner found that she had failed in the intemal assessment'ofthe subject Corporate Financial Accounting securing 9 marks out of 30. The petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent-Uniyersity for correction ofher mark-sheet and declaring her as 'pass'. The said letter was replied vide communication dated 5 July, 2008 (Annexure P/l) by fhe respondent-University denying any corrections in the mark-sheet. Shri Amit Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the pefitioner has secured 9 marks out of 30, the respondent- University ought to have declared the petifioner a's passed, as she had secured more than 20% ofthe maximum marks. Shri Sharma would further submit that when the petitioner was admitted to M.Com (Previous) course, the prospectus clearly provided that in intemal assessment, the mmimum qualifying marks would be 20%, but for qualifying M.Com (Previous) examination, the total miiiimum marks should be 36%. During the academic session, the minimum qualifying marks in intemal assessment was changed from 20% to 36%, pursuant to the order dated 15th March, 2007 (Annexure R/I-3). The petitioner has obtained 48 marks in total out of 100 marks but in intemal assessment, the petitioner was awarded 9 marks, which according to the earlier prospectus was more than 20% and accordingly, the petitioner ought to have been declared as "pass". Per contra, Shri Ashish Storivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, would submit that fhe petition deserves to b'e dismissed •K'lit?n(tm;r?ara3r? !BI 6. 7. L- u'& on the ground that it faas been filed with an inordinate and unexplained delay, as the amendment with regard to mmimum qualifymg marks in every paper of every subject including the intemal assessment from 20% to 36% was notified on 15 March, 2007 by the University and was communicated to all the concemed affiliated colleges. 5. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The question involved in this petition is asto whether the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed at the time ofadmission to the M.Com (Previous) course can be modified or changed after the intemal assessment had been conducted by the University. It is indisputable that at the time of admissiontoM.Com (Previous) course,the minimum qualifying marks inthe intemal assessment was 20%. The intemal assessment was completed in February, 2007. The University decided to increase the minimum qualifying marks from 20% to 36% by order dated 15 March,2007, in fhe intemal assessment. Contention of Shri Sharma that once the minimum qualifying marks for assessment has been prescribed at the time of admission to the course, fhe authorities cannot change the same, except prospectively inthe subsequent academic session, merits acceptance. .w. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, 'va. Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa & Others , observed that once the rules have beefl prescribed for selection, the selecting authority i.e. the State. Service Coiruiiission cannot, prescribe additional requirement for selection either as to the eligibility or as to the tC 646 ^; B';; L •|t'Fltf"W t ea ^ suitability. The decision ofthe Commission to prescribe minimum marks to be secured at the viva voce test, was held to be illegal and wifhout authority. 8. Further, in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. & another v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "5..... .It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the rules ofthe gaine, meanmg thereby,that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concemed in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced...." 9. The above cited decisions are in case of selection for appointment, however, the principle as observed in Maharashtra State Road Transport (supra), is applicable to all the cases whether it is academic examination or selection for employment. Applying the well-settled law to the facts ofthe case on haad, wherein fhe petitioner was informed at the time of admission to the M.Com (Previous) course that the minimum qualifying marks in intemal assessment would be 20% and as such, rules cannot be changed durmg the academic session particularly when the intemal assessment was held in February, 2007, by order dated 15 March, 2007. The petitioner would be govemed by the terms and conditions ofthe prospectus as was applicable to the petitioner at the time of admission to the M.Com (Previous) course. However, this may not be constmed that the University has no jurisdiction or authority to change the minimum qualifying marks, but the same would be applicable only for fhe next academic session, not for the academic session wherein it was giyefi out at the timc of admission fhat the minimum qualifying marks in fhe intemal assessment would be 20%. In the present case, 20% of 30 would be 6, and the petitioner has obtained 9 marks, and in total, in the subject -w. 'p SCC 51 s " 3^^^^^''y;'^^i^ S^^^^%eiS8rt5SiKi^fc».UaBa8aillWI(WB!(B8 *^^ -^ \.^' Corporate Fmancial Accounting, fhe petitioner has obtained 48 marks out of 100 which is more than 36% as required in the prospectus given out af the time of admission to the M.Com (Previous) course. 10. Contention of Shri Shrivastava that the petitioner has filed this petition belatedly wifhout explaining the inordinate delay, deserves to be rejected as the petitioner immediately made a representation to the respondent No. 3 on 27 June, 2006 and no response to the representation was received by the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents also which was replied on 2nd July, 2008. The present petition was filed on 28 July, 2008. Thus, there is no delay in filing this petition. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to consequential reliefs flowing from thisorder.No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit