Posted On by &filed under High Court, Rajasthan High Court.


Rajasthan High Court
Vinay Purohit vs Jai Narain University on 1 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2002 (1) WLN 451
Author: R Balia
Bench: R Balia


JUDGMENT

Rajesh Balia, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was an unsuccessful examine at the examinations of Post Graduate Diploma in Economics of Foreign Trade and Exchange Examination, 1996. The petitioner was declared failed in two papers III and IV, in the first instance. On revaluation of papers, petitioner was declared passed in Paper III. However, he still could not secure pass marks of 40% in Paper IV titled ‘Foreign Exchange in India.’ However, as per modified result the petitioner failed in only one subject, he was given the benefit of appearing in the supplementary examination to 1996 main examination only in one paper. Since the supplementary examination to the main examination, 1996 were already over by that time, the petitioner was allowed to take the said supplementary examination, 1996 in the IV Paper as a consequence of his result alongwith the main examinations in the year 1997, which opportunity the petitioner availed. However, the petitioner again failed to secure minimum pass marks of 40% as required by the syllabi under which he was prosecuting his curriculum for Post Graduate Diploma in Economics of Foreign Trade and Foreign Exchange for taking Examination, 1996. As the petitioner has not secured minimum pass marks in the supplementary paper, he was again declared ‘fail’.

3. Aggrieved with the said result, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner who had taken the supplementary examination in 1997 alongwith main examinations, has been discriminated in the matter of treating him fail notwithstanding that he had secured more than minimum requisite pass marks for 1997 main examinations. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the petitioner has taken the main examination of 1996 for the ensuing year 1997 the scheme of the examination has been changed according to which the minimum pass marks in each subject individually is reduced from 40% to 25% marks and the examinees were required to secure in aggregate 48% marks. Since the petitioner has secured more than 25% marks in the Paper IV of Foreign Exchange in India set for the main examination of 1997, he should have been declared pass In asmuch as on retaining those marks in 1997 alongwith his marks in the 1996 examinations the aggregate marks are more than 48%.

5. Learned Counsel for the University Mr. Bhandari contends that the petitioner having been admitted to the Post Graduate Diploma course in Economics of Foreign Trade and Foreign Exchange 1996, his case shall be governed by the syllabi applicable to the examinations of 1996 and has been treated on that basis. The petitioner was only allowed to take the examination in Paper IV as supplementary to the main examinations 1996 because he was failing in one subject but he was not admitted to the new scheme nor can he be treated to be so merely because of the convenience instead of holding a separate examination as supplementary examination, 1996 for completing the result of Diploma Course, 1996 for the purposes of petitioner, he was allowed to take such examination in one paper in which he was failing alongwith the examination of 1997 does not make him an examinee of 1997 main examinations and he is not entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme under which 1997 examinations were held. For the purpose of completing the result of 1996 examinations, the petitioner can only be held to be taking supplementary examinations to main examination 1996.

6. Having heard the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that this petition must fail. If the petitioner accepts himself to be a member of the 1996 syllabi examinations and want to retain the benefit of supplementary awarded to him in 1996 examinations by retaining marks allotted to him in all papers excluding the Paper IV, his case cannot be governed under the new scheme. If the petitioner treats himself to be the examinee in the new scheme then he ought to have appeared under the new scheme. In such event also for 1996 examinations he can only be declared failed for non-appearance in Paper IV of that examination or having secured less marks. He cannot be declared to have passed 1997 examinations either because he has not at all appeared in papers other than Foreign Exchange in India, set for that examination. He cannot be allowed to segregated evaluation of his total marks with reference to which the two examinations have taken place.

7. The petitioner has not appeared in all papers of 1997 examination as a student of that scheme. He only appeared as a candidate for supplementary examination as an addenda to the main examination of 1996. Therefore, only the rules governing the 1996 examinations can govern the Examination of 1996 whether main or supplementary. Since the petitioner has not secured minimum marks as required by the syllabi governing 1996 examinations, he cannot be declared ‘pass’.

8. Petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

29 queries in 0.588 seconds.