JUDGMENT
Khan, (J)
1. Both petitioner and private Respondent No. 3 took
final examination in M.Sc. (Physics) way back in 1999.
When the result was declared Respondent No. 3 was shown to
have secured first position and petitioner second.
2. Petitioner challenged this and sought
revaluation of his answer scripts. On revaluation he
outscored respondent No. 3 and then approached Respondent
University for setting right the record. His plea was
but rejected on the strength of the relevant University
Regulation (14.22) which stipulated that results of an
examination declared once could not be disturbed due to
revaluation of candidates answer scripts. He has now
filed this petition for striking down the relevant
regulation which according to him was irrational and
unreasonable generating absurd result, in the process.
3. On 14.8.2001 L/C for University, Mr. Sawhney
sought adjournment to enable the University to have a
second look at the impugned Regulation. He informed the
court today that it had passed Resolution No. 4 to make
amends by making suitable modification in the Regulation
which now provides that the position attained by a
student in the examination would not be indicated in the
mark-sheet. However a certificate showing first, second
and third positions would be issued to a student on the
request after declaration of the revaluation results.
4. This clinches the issue and redresses the
grievance because a candidates merit position would not
be finalised after the result of an examination was
declared. This renders it unnecessary to examine the
validity of University Regulation 1 (14.22) which now
stands appropriately amended. Mr. Sawhney, however,
submitted that amendment brought about was to operate
prospectively as otherwise it could reopen other similar
cases of previous years.
5. That, however, does not come in our way to grant
appropriate relief to petitioners who has been struggling
for vindicating his claim all these years. It is also
noticed that no other candidate had approached this court
or the University for a similar relief. Therefore, it
becomes easy to dispose of this petition by providing as
under:-
6. Respondents 1-2 are directed to consider
petitioner case for fixing his merit position under its
Resolution 4 after notice to R-3 and pass appropriate
order in this regard and issue requisite certificate to
him showing his correct position within two months from
receipt of this order. This shall not, however,
constitute any precedent for any other similar case
henceforth.
7. dusty.