Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
C/SCA/6689/2011
ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No 6689 of 2011
======================================
MEGHA
BHUPENDRAKUMAR GOSWAMI
Versus
GUJARAT
UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER
======================================
Appearance:
MR
BHARGAV HASURKAR as ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MRS
VD NANAVATI as ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 1.
MR
DC DAVE as ADVOCATE for the for RESPONDENT No.2
======================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 13/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waived service of
Rule. The petitioner has invoked Articles 14 and 226 of the
Constitution to voice the grievance that during the pursuit of her
studies for Bachelor Degree in Dental Surgery, in one of the papers
for the 3rd year examination, she was awarded 46 marks
while the requirement for passing the examination was 50% marks out
of 100. The petitioner applied for reassessment of marks in that
paper and on 30th April 2011 she was informed that no
change was required to be made in the marks awarded to her and
decision of failing the petitioner in the examination was maintained.
The respondent University has, in affidavit-in-reply of the
Controller of Examinations, admitted that in the subject of Oral
Pathology and Micro Biology the petitioner had obtained 46 marks out
of 100 while minimum marks for passing was 50, and had applied for
reassessment by an application dated 11.3.2011. It is also admitted
that on first reassessment she was awarded 50 marks. However, as the
increase in the marks was less than 15%, the petitioner’s paper was
not submitted for second reassessment in terms of Rule 11 of the
Reassessment Rules. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent
that following that Rule marks originally awarded to the petitioner
were kept in tact and the marks required to be increased upon
reassessment were not given effect to.
2. It
was seen from reassessment Rules of the University that Rule 9
clearly stipulated that the marks obtained by a student upon
reassessment would be final and binding upon the student concerned.
Following that Rule the petitioner was entitled as a matter of right
to be awarded the revised marks in the paper of Oral Pathology and
Micro Biology and having obtained necessary passing marks she could
not have been still declared as failed. Therefore, the stand taken
by the University and invocation of Rule 11 are unsustainable and
required to be deprecated.
3. Under
the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and Rule
is made absolute with the direction that the respondent University
shall give effect to the marks revised upon reassessment of the paper
of Oral Pathology and Micro Biology of the petitioner and declare her
to have passed that examination with all necessary consequences
thereof. Consequently, the petitioner shall be, as far as
practicable, facilitated in appearing for examination of the 4th
year of her course. No cost. Direct service is permitted.
(D.H.WAGHELA,
J.)
*malek
Page
2 of 2
Top