IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2774/2009 Decided on:16.11.2009 ________________________________________________ Papiya Lahiri. …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh University and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. ________________________________________________________ Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner sought admission in M.A. (English) in the respondent- University. She secured 190 marks in first semester, 180 marks in second semester, 196 marks in third semester and 173 marks in fourth semester out of 300 marks. She made application seeking revaluation of various papers of fourth semester. She secured 172 marks after revaluation. She being not satisfied with the first revaluation made a representation to the respondent-university vide 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Annexure P-7. The Chairperson of the English Department recommended the case of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the-then Vice Chancellor of the respondent-university for taking appropriate action. The Vice Chancellor decided that the matter may be examined by a Committee. It was also decided that the copies of both the students i.e. petitioner and respondent No.4 be got checked from Dean of Studies, who is also Professor and Chairperson in the Department of English. The Committee deliberated on 5.5.2008. The following scenario emerged after revaluation undertaken by the Committee as per deliberations dated 5.5.2008: Course No. 1st Evaluation Marks Marks after 1st Re- evaluation Marks after 2nd Re- evaluation Annual awards to be awarded XIV 49 47 57 54 XV 42 42 56 49 XVI 40 41 54 48 Thereafter the matter was sent to the Vice Chancellor for approval. It is evident from the pleadings of the parties that the Vice Chancellor has not accorded approval to the deliberations dated 5.5.2008 and the result of the petitioner after second revaluation was not declared. Mr. Subhash Sharma has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents No. 1 to 3 not to approve the recommendations of the Committee comprising of Dean of Studies and Chairperson of the Department of English is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that the-then Vice Chancellor had already 3 constituted the Committee to look into the entire gamut of the case and the Committee revaluated the answer scripts of the petitioner and in these circumstances the revised result of the petitioner ought to have been declared. Mr. B.C. Negi has strenuously argued on behalf of respondent- University that the procedure adopted by the-then Vice Chancellor who had ordered the constitution of the Committee comprising of Dean of Studies and Chairperson of the Department of English was contrary to the mandatory provisions of First Ordinances 6.70 as amended from time to time. He then submitted that in these circumstances, it was not permissible to the University under law to declare the revised result as per the exercise undertaken by the Committee on 5.5.2008. Mr. Pankaj Sharma appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 has adopted the arguments of Mr. B.C. Negi. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the petitioner has secured 173 marks out of 300 in fourth semester. She applied for the revaluation. The revaluation was undertaken by the respondent-university in accordance with law. Petitioner secured 172 marks after revaluation. She made representation to the-then Vice Chancellor of the respondent-university on 17.3.2008 to look into the matter and to re-valuate her answer scripts pertaining to fourth semester. The Chairperson of the English Department recommended and forwarded the case to the Vice Chancellor. It is in this backdrop that the Vice Chancellor constituted and decided to get the answer 4 scripts of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 revaluated from Dean of Studies and Chairperson of the Department of English. The committee revaluated the answer scripts of the petitioner. She was awarded 57 marks instead of 47 marks in course No. XIV, 56 marks instead of 42 marks in course No. XV and 54 marks instead of 41 marks. The committee has termed this revaluation as a special revaluation. The detailed procedure for revaluation has been provided in the First Ordinances 6.70. The relevant portion of First Ordinance 6.70 reads thus: “6.70 (a)… (b)…. (c ) The Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar- Incharge of re-evaluation work shall put up all applications referred to above to the Controller of Examinations, who shall get each script separately evaluated and the revised result shall be determined in the following manner:- (i) An examiner other than the one who had originally evaluated will re-evaluate the script and average of the two awards shall be the final award in case the variation ( increase or decrease) in the two awards is not more than 10% of the maximum marks allotted to the paper/course. (ii) The script shall be referred to the third examiner in case variation (increase/decrease) is more than 10 % in the two awards and the average of the two higher awards (out of the three) shall be the final award. 5 (iii) The fraction of 0.5 will be rounded off to the next whole integer.” A bare perusal of First Ordinances 6.70 (c) reveals that the answer script is to be referred to the third examiner only in case variation increase/decrease is more than 10% in the two awards and the average of the two higher awards (out of the three) is to be treated as final award. In the present case the difference in marks was less than 10% when the first revaluation was undertaken. Petitioner has secured 173 marks in main examination and after revaluation; the same were reduced to 172 marks. In view of this, the matter could not be referred to the third examiner at all. The course adopted by the- then Vice Chancellor on the basis of the recommendations made by the Chairperson of the Department of English was de hors the mandatory provisions of law. The course adopted by the authorities was unwarranted. The Acts, Statutes and the Ordinances framed are to be scrupulously followed. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the Chairperson of the Department of English. She herself participated in the process of revaluation on 5.5.2008 along with Dean of Studies. A detailed procedure/methodology has been prescribed under the First Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University, 1973 the manner in which the revaluation is to be undertaken. In the present case constitution of the Committee was not within the ambit of Ordinances. The only procedure prescribed to refer the matter to third examiner is, if there is decrease/increase of more than 10% marks. 6 The Vice Chancellor is the principal executive and also Academic Officer of the University. It is the duty cast upon him to ensure that the provisions of the University Act, Statutes and Ordinances are scrupulously followed. In the present case, the Vice Chancellor has done exactly what is expected from him. The Vice Chancellor has taken a correct decision by not permitting to perpetuate the illegality. Moreover, in case the Acts, Statutes and Ordinances are not followed, it would lower the academic standards of the University. The Vice Chancellor has taken a conscious decision and we approve the same. It is also settled law by now that the Court should be wary to interfere in academic field. Accordingly, the Court cannot direct the declaration of the petitioner’s result on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee in its meeting held on 5.5.2008. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 16.11. 2009. *awasthi*