1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2484 OF 1996 Sehira Ebrahim of Bombay .... Petitioner Vs. University of Mumbai & Ors. .... Respondents Shri Y.V. Divekar i/b Divekar & Co. for the Petitioner. Shri R.A. Rodrigues for Respondent No.1. Shri Shrivardhan Deshpande i/b Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for Respondent No.3. CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED: APRIL 28, 2010 P.C: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the validity of Ordinance 237-A(10) as suffering from illegality and impropriety in so far as it provides that the revised marks obtained by candidates on re-valuation shall not be taken into account for the purpose of 2 awarding scholarships, prizes, medals and any other award and/or for determining the order for merit and, therefore, it should be declared illegal, null and void and be struck down by this Court and by way of relief, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to respondent No.1 to declare that the petitioner has secured the highest number of marks in the Third LL.B. Examinations amongst the successful candidates in the examinations held in October, 1995 and May, 1996 and to confer upon the petitioner the rank, honour, certification, prizes, medals, scholarships and benefits available to the highest scorer of the said LL.B. Examinations. 3. The petitioner was required to file this writ petition being aggrieved by the fact that though she secured the highest number of marks in the Third LL.B. Examinations held in May, 1996, she was deprived of the same for the reason that in one of the papers i.e., Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner was initially awarded only 29 marks and declared failed, although the petitioner s aggregate mark was 365, which was the highest aggregate than the successful candidate who got the highest number of mark in the Third LL.B. Examinations held in May, 1996. It is only on re-valuation that the 3 petitioner was given 53 marks in Civil Procedure Code paper but was not placed first in the University and was deprived of the rank, honour, certification, prizes, medals, scholarships and benefits whatsoever which otherwise she was entitled to. At the time this petition was filed, this Court did not grant any interim relief to the petitioner which resulted in respondent No.3 being declared eligible for the rank, honour, certification, prizes, medals, scholarships and benefits to which the candidate who topped in the University in the said examinations was entitled to. This Court thereafter found it proper to admit the petition on 20-1-1997 and now it has come up for final hearing. 4. In the course of the hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in case the petitioner is given a certificate that she has passed the Third LL.B. Examinations, held in May, 1996, with First Class and has topped in the University, then the petitioner s grievance would stand redressed and she would not insist for the relief sought in the petition of conferring upon her the rank, honour, certification, prizes, medals, scholarships and benefits 4 available to the highest scorer of the said LL.B. Examinations, which came to be awarded to respondent No.3, for the reason that due to passage of time the petitioner may not get any benefit out of it but at least her merit deserves to be recognised by the University. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 thereafter consulted the authorities of respondent No.1 and informed the Court that respondent No.1-University is ready to issue a special certificate to this effect and accordingly the learned counsel has tendered before us a draft certificate along with the covering letter addressed to the learned counsel by the Controller of Examinations. The covering letter and the draft certificate are taken on the record and marked X collectively for identification. The counsel for the parties have gone through the special certificate and have expressed satisfaction in the matter. 6. In view of the above, we would not like to examine the challenge of the petitioner to Clause (10) of Ordinance 237-A relating to re- valuation, which was in existence at the relevant time and which is now no more in 5 existence and since the respondent-University has agreed to issue a special certificate in favour of the petitioner recognising her merit, we dispose of this petition with the direction to the respondent-University to issue a special certificate of merit as per the draft certificate, incorporating therein the changes suggested by the Court, in favour of the petitioner within a week s time. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. 7. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. J.N. PATEL, J. A.P. BHANGALE, J.