PETITIONER:
BHUSHAN UTTAM KHARE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DEAN, B.J. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/01/1992
BENCH:
PANDIAN, S.R. (J)
BENCH:
PANDIAN, S.R. (J)
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 917 1992 SCR (1) 386
1992 SCC (2) 220 JT 1992 (1) 583
1992 SCALE (1)191
ACT:
Poona University Act, 1974- Ordinance 134A and 146-
Revaluation of answer books-Whether second revaluation
permissible.
HEADNOTE:
Consequent upon the announcement of his M.B.B.S.
Examination result on 12.12.1990, the petitioner alongwith
other 166 students, applied for revaluation of answer books
under University of Poona Ordinance 134A. When the
revaluation results were declared, certain students made
representation to the University Authorities for their
answer papers being revalued from the same set of examiners.
The University on consideration of that representation
appointed a Committee for scrutiny and to reasses theory
papers of the students acquiring more than 20% marks after
revaluation, from senior teachers of the Faculty. After
scrutiny, it was found out that the marks are closer to the
original marks in Medicine, Surgery and Preventive and
Social Medicine. The Committee therefore recommended that
the entire revaluation of the papers should be cancelled.
The Executive Council by a resolution cancelled the result
of the revaluation and directed fresh revaluation and the
second revaluation was done through the examiners outside
the State and the result declared on the basis thereof.
The peritioner and others challenged the aforesaid decision
of the Executive Council cancelling the earlier revaluation
and directing a second revaluation by means of writ
petitions. It was contended before the High Court on behalf
of the petitioners that the action of the Executive Council
was arbitrary in as much as there was no malpractice, fraud
or anything objectionable to the revaluation as the
examiners were chosen by the Vice-Chancellor as enjoined
under the Ordinance. Hence the cancellation of revaluation
was not proper. The High Court repelled the two contentions
advanced before it and dismissed the writ petitions. Hence
this Petition for Special Leave to appeal.
Dismissing the Petition for special leave to appeal,
this Court,
HELD: In deciding the matters relating to orders passed
by authorities of educational institutions, the Court should
normally be
387
very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters
falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities
should normally be left to their decision and the Court
should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so
in the interest of justice. [390 B]
Under Ordinance 134A, the Vice-Chancellor shall use his
discretionary power to decide as to whether all the
applications received from the candidates, considered for
revaluation or not. If as a result of revaluation of
answer-books, the marks obtained by the candidate increase
over the original marks by 10% or more then only the result
of revaluation will be accepted by the University. [388 C-D]
Ordinance 146 is comprehensive enough to include
revaluation also for further action. The fact that two
examiners were also the members of the Committee which
recommended for revaluation cannot result in any bias even
if they had been directly concerned with the original
evaluation. It is true that in the second revaluation also
there had been some changes between the original valuation
and the revaluation results. However, it is not so glaring
or demonstrably unconscionable as seen in the first
revaluation. [390 D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special leave Petition
(Civil) No. 10330 of 1991.
From the Judgement and Order dated 3.5.1991 of the
Bomaby High ourt in writ Petition No. 186 of 1991.
Kapil Sibal, Makrand D. Adkar and Ejaz Maqbool for the
Petitioner.
R.D. Tulpule, D.M. Nargolkar, Ms. Kiran Bhagalia, Ms.
V.D.Khanna and A.M. Khanwilkar for the respondents.
Caveator-in-person.
The following Order of the Court was delivered.
The petitioner, Bhushan Uttam Khare, appeared for the
Third Year M.B.B.S. Examination held by University of Poona
in the months of October-November, 1990. The results of
the said examination were declared on 12.12.1990. As per
University of Poona Ordinance 134A, the petitioner applied
for revaluation of his answer papers. 167 students
including the petitioner had applied for revaluation. When
the revaluation results were declared, certain students made
representation to the University authorities for their
answer papers being revaluate from the same set of examiners.
388
On receipt of the representation, the Executive Council
of University appointed a Committee to make an enquiry. On
the report of the Committee, the University of Poona decided
to cancel the revaluation results and to conduct further
revaluation. This decision of the Executive Council
cancelling the earlier revaluation and directing a second
revaluation was challenged by the petitioner and others in
writ petitions filed before the High Court at Bomaby. By
the impugned judgement dated May 3, 1991 the High Court
dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the decisions,
the petitioners have moved this petition for special leave.
The Poona University Act, 1974 defines the powers and
duties of the Executive Council. The Executive Council may
make Ordinances to provide for the conduct of the
examinations. Under Ordinance 134A, the Vice-Chancellor
shall use his discretionery powers to decide as to whether
all the applications received from the candidates, be
considered for revaluation or not. If as a result of
revaluation of answer-books, the marks obtained by the
candidate increase over the original marks by 10% or more of
the marks carried by the paper then only the result of
revaluation will be accepted by the University. Application
for vertification of answer-books will be entertained within
a period of two weeks from the date of declaration of the
results.
Ordinance 146 reads:
“146. In any case where it is found that the
result of an examination has been affected by
error, malpractice, fraud, improper conduct or
other course of whatsoever nature, the Executive
Council shall have power to amend such result in
such manner as shall be in accord with the true
position and to make such declaration as the
Executive Council shall consider necessary in that
behalf. Provided that, but subject to 0.147, no
result shall be amended after the expiration of six
months from the date of publication of the said
result”.
In the Third Year M.B.B.S. Examination, 402 students
appeared for the examination and 167 students for
revaluation of the answer-books. When the representation of
students opting for revaluation was placed before the
Executive Council as glaring difference was indicated, a
Committee was appointed for scrutiny and to reassess theory
papers of the students acquiring more than 20% marks after
revaluation, from senior teachers of the Faculty. After
scrutiny, it was found out that the marks are closer to the
original marks in Medicine, Surgery and Preventive and
Social Medicine. Therefore, the Committee recommended that
the entire revaluation of the papers should be cancelled.
This report of the
389
Committee was placed before the Executive Council in its
meeting held on March 27, 1991 and the Council by the
resolution cancelled the result of the revaluation and
directed fresh revaluation. The second revaluation was done
through the examiners outside the State.
The results on revaluation intimated to the Medical
College thus stood cancelled and the final results were
delcared in pursuance to the second revaluation. The action
of the Executive Council was attacked on the grounds that it
was an arbitrary action; that the choice of the examiners
was that of the Vice-Chancellor as enjoined under the
Ordinance and there was no glaring instance of any
malpractice, fraud or other course of whatsoever nature to
cancel the revaluation and in the absence of any provision
in the statute or the Ordinance for a second revaluation,
the decision taken by the Executive Council is unwarranted
and, therefore, illegal.
In repelling these contentions, the High Court has
taken the view that educational institutions set up Enquiry
Committee to deal with problem posed by the adoption of
unfair means and it is normally within their domestic
jurisdiction to decide all questions in the light of the
material adduced. Unless there is an absolute and
compelling justification, the Writ Court is slow to
interfere with the autonomous activity of the Executive
Councils. The High Court said that the material on record
indicated that this is not a case for exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and since
the Court has found that there is material to reach the
decision as regards cancellation of the impugned result of
revaluation, the contentions taken up by the petitioner are
untenable.
The petitioners have reiterated the submissions that
there had been no improper conduct come to light and the
absence of any provision for a second revaluation vitiates
the whole action. We have been taken through a comparative
chart containing the marks awarded in the original
examination, the first revaluation and the second
revaluation. The attempt of the learned counsel for the
petitioners had been to make out that the disparity was not
such as to indicate any improper practice and that the
Committee constituted consisted of four members of whom two
were original examiners and the report submitted by that
Committee should not have been made the basis for the
decision which affected the prospects and career of a large
number of medical students. The learned counsel for the
University as also the standing counsel for the State drew
our attention to the fact that Executive Council had only
cautiously proceeded in the matter and before ordering
cancellation a probe was made and the mem-
390
bers of the Enquiry Committee were competent persons and
that there is no illegality which warrants interference of
the Court.
We have considered all the materials placed before us
in the light of arguments advanced keeping in mind the well
accepted principle that in deciding the matters relating to
orders passed by authorities of educational institutions,
the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its
jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction
of educational authorities should normally be left to their
decision and the Court should interfere with them only when
it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. We are
satisfied that there had been sufficient material before the
Executive Council to proceed in the manner in which it has
done. It is not correct to say that the University had
acted on non-existing rule for ordering revaluation.
Ordinance 146 is comprehensive enough to include revaluation
also for further action. The fact that two examiners were
also the members of the Committee which recommended for
revaluation cannot result in any bias even if they had been
directly concerned with the original evaluation. It is true
that in the second revaluation also there had been some
changes between the original valuation and the
revaluation results. However, it is not so glaring or
demonstrably unconscionable as seen in the first
revaluation. We cannot, therefore, accept the contention of
the petitioner that the High Court had erred in not granting
the relief sought for. We can only observe that the case of
the petitioner, who alone has come before this Court and who
had secured higher marks in the first revaluation and is,
therefore, aggrieved by the cancellation of the same, would
by duly considered in the selection for Post-Graduate
Course. The special leave petition is dismissed.
Y.L. SLP dismissed.
391
