1 e^ {sf^— IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (0 N0. (3^fi / 2011 PETITIONER ^ .v^:<:^-" ^b^cw- ^- '..•('yo.\\ ..-•^<" /-/ v- ^?^-^ : \' * ' c?wy ..v' \'^- r Preeti Satpathi, wife of Shri Brajesh Satpathi, aged about 30 years, resident of Rohinipuram, Pallavi Vihar Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State ofChhattisgarh, through Secretary Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, through the Registrar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OFJND!A FOR ISSUANCE QF APPROPRIATEAND SUITABLE WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS i^ ^^ ^T^^; ^ ''sr:; :s^j:r; B^^|^B88S^s^^^^^6^^t@^» ^i^^s®S!B^(a»eB^issiaBiiB!^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR le Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, WRIT PETITiON (C) N0.283/2011 Preeti Satpathi Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another Present: - Shri Amrito Das, counsei ror the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer forState/respondent No.f- Shri Neeraj Chaubey, counsel for respondents No.2. ORALORDER (Passed on 31 January, 2011) Heard finaily, with the consent of the parties. The plight ventiiated through this petition by a gold medalist in L.L.M. is that even though she is entitled to an award of goid medai during the annuat convocation as provided in Reguiation no.112 ofthe University, the petitioner has been deprived of such award of gold medal in the forthcoming convocation of the University, scheduied io be heid on 2/2/2011. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate, having secured merit position through out her entire academic career. The petitioner passed High School Examination and Higher Secondary Examination with distinction in subjects foilowed by Graduation in Arts facuity with first division. The petitioner completed her L.L.B. course with first diyision and thereafter took up L.L.M. course with the respondent/University as a regular stuaent. The resuits of the examination were declared in which the petitioner was declared to have obtained 59.44% i.e. second division in the mark sheet dated 18/4/08 ('Annexure P/5). As the petitioner was not satlsned with the ,^ci% f/~~l^ \ j 1 'l "" J J '"•!&.. "'fy "<i:^£::S-2-^3'* 3C valuation, she appiied for revaiuation and in the revaluaiion, thepetitioner was declared to have obtained 61% marks, thereby securing first division. The resuit was deciared on 9/9/09 vide Annexure P/6. The mark sheet was issued to the petitioner on 10/9/09 (Annexure P/7). In this process, by the time, the petitloner couid be deciared as having passed with first division, the convocation for the session 12/01/09 was aiready held. The petitioner thereafter preferred representation on 4/1/10 for award of gold medal in the annual convocation ceremony, on which the University issued an order on 14/1/2010 to shortlist and identify the eiigibie candidates for award of gold medal. However, revised notification could not be issued and convocation was held on 17/1/10. The petitioner then preferred a representation to the Chanceltor of the University whereupon the Chanceiior issued direction to the Registrar for appropriate decision vide its order dated 8/3/10 (Annexure P/12). Thereaner, when the matter was not decided, the petitioner preferred another representation on 20/12/2010, requesting for award of gold medal scheduied to be held on 24/1/2011. Another representation was preferred on 30/12/10, but no specific order was given though, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, an assurance was held out to the petitioner for due consideration'. When no formai order / notification was issued including the name of the petitioner atso as one of the candidate for receipt of goid medai at the annual convocation, this petition has beenfiied. 3. Learned counsei for the petitioner argued that even though the petitioner had secured top position in the examination for the session 2007-08, gold medal could not be awarded for the reason that she failed to secure first division as requirsd under the Reguiatlon No.1 12. But after revaluation, the petitioner was declared as having secured 61% of marks, she became entitled to award of gold medal and the University has aiso accepted this. In that situation, the petitioner is entitled to award of goid medai in the annuai convocation of the University as provided under Reguiation No.112. Learned counsei for the petltioner submitted that the petitioner having secured first position in order of merit and having obiained first divislon, she is aiso entitied for award or goid medal in the annuai convocation as provided under Reguiation No.112 ofthe University and there is no discernible reason With the University not to award the petitioner with gold medal in ihe annual convocation. 4. On the other hand, learned counset for the respondent / University submitted that according to the tradition of the Universily, oniy those students are allowed in the convocation ceremony, who have secured top position in various subjects in the University examination held in the immediate preceding year. He submits that as the petitioner is not the topper ofthe academic session 2009-10, there is no legai provision to allow the petitioner to ciaim, award of gold medal in the annual convocation. He submits that whatever may be the reason, the fact remains that annual convocation for the academic session of 2007-08 has aiready been heid in the year 2009. 'Therefore, even after revaiuation, if the petitioner Is entitled to award of goid medai, she cannot claim for award as of right for goid medal in a convocation ceremony, though the University has duiy informed to the petitioner on 22/1/11 to complete formaiities and cotiect the gold medai from the Deveiopment Section. Further submission of respondent / University is that there is a separate provision for award of goid medal to the siudent of back years. Last submission of learned counsei for the respondent/ university is that as ths annual convocation is to be held on 2/2/2011, it wouid h\ not be possibie to inciude the name of the petitioner aiso for award of goid medal in the annuai convocation ceremony. 5. Learned State counsel submitted that as the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No.2, he has nothing to say. 6. it is not in dispute that the petitioner initiaily secured second division in the resuit deciared on 18/4/0&. Upon revaiuation, the petitioner was declared to have obtained 61% thereby securing first division. It is aiso not in dispute that the petitioner secured first position in the L.L.M. examination for the year 2007- 08. Reguiation No.112 framed by the University cieariy reads that the Universitv wiii award goid medal to the examinees at the annual convocation on the date fixed by the Executive Council securing first position out of the examinees passed in first division in the subjects /" ciasses in which the provision of Gold medal does not exist in the existing Regulation, provided that the moment any donor institutesthe gold medal in the subject/ciass concerned by Pt. Ravishankar Shukia Unh/ersity, goid medal wiil automaticaliy be transferred in his name. Therefore, the Reguiation itself provide for award of gold medai in the annual convocation to one, who has secured first position with first division. The peculiar facts of the case go to show that by the time, the petitioner couid get benefit of revaiuation, the convocation of the particular year had already been heid. However, there is no impediment or any provision otherwise to debar as such a goid medaiist of the previous year to be awarded goid medai in the annuai convocaiion of the foilowing years. Al! that has been stated by iearned counsel for respondent /' University that it is only a matter of tradition. In the absence of there being any impedinrent, provided under the rules and reguiations of the University, non-inclusion of the candidate of previous year for award of gold ^ medai without any just and proper reasons so as to satisfy the rigour of Articie 14 of the Constitution of india, it is difficult for this Court to accept justification advanced by iearned counsel for the respondent for not aliowing the petitioner for award of gold medai. Once the Reguiation of respondent /' University provide for award of goid medai in the annual convocation, in the absence ofthere being any impediment under the Regulations of the University, ordinariiy, the candidate wouid be entitied to gold medai in the annuai convocation. If for some reason, the medai couid not be awarded in the first convocation, in appropriate cases, there does not appear to be any impediment to aliow the candidate for award of gold medai in the following convocation ceremony. The reasons which have been assigned by the respondent in the return, do not satisiy the rigour of Articte 14 of the Constitution of india. Felicitating by award of gold medai in an annual convocation is a historicai moment in the iife of a student, who made his best effort to achieve excellence. Before taking a decision to refuse a candidate for award of gold medal in an annuai convocation, the University authorities are bound to consider the same in accordance with their own Regulations. Though iearned counsei for the respondent University submitted that there is a separate provision for award of goid medai to the student of back years, he couid not bring to the Court, any such provision. 7. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the decision of the respondentfuniversity to not aliow the petitioner for award of goid medai in the forthcoming annuai convocation, does not appear to be just, iegal and fair and sufters from arbitrariness. 8. It is stated that the convocation is scheduied to be held on 2/2/2011. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and in view of the findings which have been recorded by this Court, the respondent / University shaii consider the case of the petitioner for award of gold medai in the annuai convocation scheduied to be held on 2/2/2011. If for any reason, beyond the control, it is not possibie to aiiow the petitioner in the said convocation, the petitioner shaii be awarded gold medai in the annual convocation for the foliowing year. 9. Accordingly, the petition is ailowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. 10. Certified copy by tomorrow. Sd./- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge