HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.12493 of 2002 25-06-2010 Between: M.Deva Vara Mercy Angel ………Petitioner And The Registrar, Nagarjuna University, Guntur. ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.12493 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of the respondent i.e. the Registrar, Nagarjuna University, Guntur, in not returning the original marks statement of the 1st year, 2nd year and final year B.Sc., along with the original provisional certificate bearing Register No.33404 of the petitioner as arbitrary and consequential direction to return the said certificates to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner studied B.Sc., in J.M.J. College, Tenali, affiliated to Nagarjuna University during 1977-1980. She claims to have passed the degree 1st year in September 1978, 2nd year in April 1979, and final year in April 1980. As she failed in Chemistry subject of the 2nd year, she again appeared for the exam conducted in September 1982 vide Regn. No.33404 and claims to have passed Chemistry in the said examination. Marks memo was also issued to her showing ‘35’ marks in the subject. Since she secured ‘35’ marks, she was declared passed and accordingly the Provisional Certificate dated 10-02-1983 was issued. Later she applied for convocation certificate on 29-01-1991. In response to the said letter, the controller of exams, Nagarjuna University addressed a letter dated 22-03-1991 asking the petitioner to submit all the original marks memos and the Provisional Certificate. In this letter, the purpose of calling upon the petitioner to produce the said originals was not indicated. However, the petitioner responded to the said letter and submitted all the originals to the controller of examinations. The petitioner was awaiting the return of the originals and also the convocation decree certificate. However, she again received a letter dated 12-08-1991 from the Professor, Department of Statistics, to the effect that the petitioner secured only ‘15’ marks in the subject as against ‘35’ as noted in the marks memo and she was therefore directed to appear for enquiry and submit explanation. The petitioner accordingly submitted a detailed explanation dated 20-08-1991. In the letter dated 12-08-1991, the petitioner was asked to submit explanation with reference to a Provisional Certificate No.33804, whereas actual number of the petitioner’s Certificate is 33404. The petitioner in her explanation dated 20-08-1991 pointed out the said discrepancy and reiterated her request to return the originals along with the convocation degree certificate. After the explanation was submitted, the Professor, Department of Statistics, who was supposed to conduct enquiry, did not conduct any enquiry. When the matter rested there, the Registrar of the University, the respondent herein, again issued a notice dated 16-08-1994 and called upon the petitioner to appear before him on 20- 08-1994 to produce the original certificates. This notice was addressed for production of documents notwithstanding the petitioner has already produced all the originals in pursuance of the letter dated 22-03-1991 of the Controller of Exams as noted above. The petitioner again appeared before the Registrar on 20-08-1994. Since nothing has been heard ever since 1994, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel Sri Hariharan appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is entitled for return of the mark memos and the provisional certificate and the convocation degree certificate as well. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was not aware of any tampering of the marks as alleged in the letter dated 12-08-1991 of the Professor of the Department of Statistics. He would further submit that the petitioner cooperated with the enquiry and was present at all times whenever the notice was issued for conducting enquiry. He would further submit that no such enquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and no result has been communicated so far. 4. The learned counsel Sri Srinivas appearing on behalf of the respondent would contend that the petitioner failed in the Chemistry paper of the 2nd year. She secured only ‘15’ marks. However, the marks memo that was issued to her showed ‘35’ marks. He would therefore contend that the marks memo of the 2nd year is fabricated, and therefore, the documents received from the petitioner are not liable to be returned. 5. In order to appreciate the contentions, this Court called for the original records. The relevant registers viz., B.Sc., Degree Examination Tabulation Register and the Original Tabulations of Marks were produced. A perusal of the register would show that the petitioner secured only ‘15’ marks in the subject. The entries in the register were based on the tabulation sheet, in which the marks were entered immediately after the valuation of the paper. On perusal of these entries, it is clear that the petitioner secured only ‘15’ marks as against ‘35’ noted in the marks memo. 6. It is therefore, obvious that the petitioner cannot be considered to have passed the degree examination and she is not entitled for the return of the provisional certificate. However, the marks memos cannot be withhold by the respondent on any pretext. Even a failed candidate is entitled to know how many marks he has secured and the authorities are bound to furnish them. There is no dispute that the petitioner passed the 1st year and the final year B.Sc., course. She also passed all the subjects of the 2nd year except Chemistry subject. Therefore, the respondent is not justified in retaining the marks memos. 7. In the circumstances, the respondent is directed to return to the petitioner the original/duplicate marks memos of the 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year B.Sc, course within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 25-06-2010. Kvr