Letters Patent Appeal No.1559 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.1559 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 29.8.2011 Panjab University ...Appellant Versus Ms. Mansi Grover and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge directing the appellant University to give an opportunity to respondent No.1 writ petitioner to clear her examination and to pay a ` 50,000/- by way of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant states that as regards the direction to allow opportunity to appear in examination is concerned, such opportunity has already been given. The appeal is confined to the award of ` 50,000/- as compensation. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.1 writ petitioner was declared to have passed M.Sc. Mathematics in October, 2008. Thereafter, the result was reviewed and she was declared to have failed by reducing the marks awarded earlier. Her marks were reduced from 33 to 26 in one paper and from 26 to 21 in another paper. The writ petition Letters Patent Appeal No.1559 of 2011 -2- *** aggrieved thereby was filed in this Court. Contention in support of the writ petition was that the reduction of marks was arbitrary. The Court asked the University to produce the papers but the stand of the University was that papers had been destroyed. This stand was not appreciated and it was held that action of the University in reducing the marks was arbitrary which resulted in wastage of two valuable years of the writ petitioner. In these circumstances, learned Single Judge directed award of compensation of ` 50,000/- apart from requiring an opportunity being given to the writ petitioner. Finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is as under:- “The Court views this disapprovingly for the reason that the petition regarding the dispute of her marks in two of the subjects was pending before this Court by way of the instant petition and this should have been sufficient notice to the respondents not to destroy any material pertaining to the controversy. It is thus evident that the respondents have treated the case of the petitioner with extreme callousness which has resulted in severe prejudice to her. It has not only demonstrated careless attitude of the University to the entire examination, valuation and revaluation process and also reveals a apathetic state of affairs, which this case reveals and which may be a tip of the iceberg. The Court cannot condone such a lapse more so when it has resulted in loss of two valuable years to the petitioner. Her marks sheet may not be a Letters Patent Appeal No.1559 of 2011 -3- *** manifestation of the record of a bright student but at the same time the chance that she could have got to improve her performance has been wrested away from her on account of the lackadaisical attitude of the University. It is thus directed by accepting the petition partly that the respondents shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to clear her examination by holding a special examination for her in the month of May 2011 in both the aforesaid subjects. For the loss that they have caused to the petitioner, the University shall compensate the petitioner by paying costs of Rs.50,000/-.” It is not disputed that no opportunity of being heard was given to the writ petitioner before reducing her marks. The justification for reducing the marks could not be established before the Court as the record was not preserved. Learned Single Judge was, thus, justified in drawing inference of arbitrariness on the part of the appellant university which prejudiced the petitioner, entitling her to the relief claimed. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice August 29, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge