JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
1. Heard Shri Haq, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kulkami, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner appeared in M. A. Part I (English) Examination conducted by the respondent University in the year 1999. He was declared pass in the said examination. The grievance of the petitioner is that the marks awarded to him in three subjects, viz. (i) Chaucer to Milton, (ii) Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama and (iii) The Victorian Age, were on lower side and that there was some error in evaluation in the aforesaid three papers and, therefore, he intended to apply for revaluation in the aforesaid three papers but the respondent University, in view of Ordinance No. 159 (Amended), told the petitioner that he was entitled to seek revaluation in only one paper. Faced with this situation, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Ordinance No. 159 to the effect it provides for revaluation in only one head of passing of the student’s choice.
3. We are mainly concerned with Rule 3 of Ordinance No. 159 (Amended), which reads thus :
“3(i)(A) Who appears in all the subjects of A University Examination at one and the same sitting and fails in not more than ‘two heads of passing prescribed for theory papers at the said examination shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his Answer-book in the said heads of passing provided he has secured at least 50 per cent of the marks required for passing in each of those heads or Minimum “C” grade in cases where grades are assigned to theory papers. For the purpose of the Sub-clause, a candidate who has passed in individual heads, but has Failed only on the aggregate, shall be Eligible to seek revaluation of his Answer-books in any two theory papers of his choice, in case, however, a candidate who has failed in only one individual head and has either passed or failed on the aggregate, shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his Answer-books in a theory paper in which he has failed in addition to one more theory paper of his choice.
(B) Who appears at a University Examination with exemption in any theory paper or papers and fails in only one head of passing prescribed for theory papers at the said Examination, shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his Answer-books in the said head of passing provided he has secured at least 50 per cent of the Marks required for
passing in that head or minimum “C” grade in cases where grades are assigned to theory papers.
For the purpose of this sub-clause, a candidate who has passed in individual heads, but has failed only on the aggregate shall be deemed eligible to seek revaluation of his Answer-books in only ONE theory paper of his choice.
Explanation. — For the purpose of determining whether a candidate is eligible to seek revaluation of his Answer-books in terms of the provisions of Sub-clauses (A) and (B) above, his failure in a head of passing prescribed for a group of theory papers or on the aggregate of all theory papers prescribed at a University Examination, shall be ignored.
(C) Who appears in all the subjects of a University Examination at one and the same sitting and fails in only one head of passing by more than 50 per cent of the marks required for passing in that head and whose marks on the aggregate in the remaining heads of passing other than the one in which he has failed, exceed the total marks required for passing in the remaining heads of passing by at least ten per cent shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his Answer-books in the said head of passing,
Explanation. — For the purpose of interpretation of the provision of sub-clauses (A), (B) and (C) above fraction shall be ignored.
(D) Who appears in all the Subjects of a University Examination at one and the same sitting and is declared successful, shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his Answer-books in only ONE head of passing of his choice.
Explanation. — For the purpose of interpretation of the provisions of Sub-clauses (A), (C) and (D) above a candidate whose marks in Term Work/Practical/Oral/Project Work/Sessional Work are carried forward in accordance with the scheme of examination shall be deemed to have appeared in all the subjects of a University Examination at one and the same sitting.”
4. What is challenged specifically before us is Clause (D) of Rule 3(i), wherein it is provided that if a student, who has appeared in all the subjects of the University, has been declared successful, having appeared at one and the same sitting, shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his answer-books in only one head of passing of his choice. The contention of Shri Haq, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that under Rule 3, various categories have been carved out. A student, who has appeared in all the subjects of University examination and has failed in not more than two papers, is entitled to seek revaluation of his answer-books in two papers. Similarly, a student, who has passed in individual heads, but has failed only on the aggregate, is also entitled to seek revaluation of his answer-books in any two papers of his
choice. Again, a student, who has failed in only one individual head and-has either passed or failed on the aggregate, is entitled to seek revaluation of his answer-books in two papers, one in which he has failed and one more paper of his choice. The submission of Shri Haq is that by permitting a student, who has appeared at one and the same sitting and has been declared successful, to seek revaluation of his answer-books in one subject only, is discriminatory and unreasonable.
5. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Shri Haq, we find no unreasonableness or discrimination in Rule 3(i)(D) of Ordinance No. 159 (Amended). The objective of this Rule is to give an opportunity to a candidate, who has appeared in all subjects in University examination at one and the same sitting and declared fail either on the aggregate or has failed in two subjects, to have revaluation of two subjects of his choice so that he may have satisfaction that there was no such error in revaluation and assessment, which may have affected the final result. The student, who has failed in one subject, is given an opportunity to seek revaluation of the subject in which he failed and one additional subject of his choice in which he passed. The student, who has passed out in all papers, is given an opportunity to seek revaluation in only one subject. Thus it is seen that there is clear objective behind this rule and it does not suffer from any vice or discrimination or unreasonableness. Obviously, a student, who has failed in two subjects or has failed in one subject, stands on a different footing with the student, who has passed out in all subjects so far as the revaluation is concerned and, therefore, the different categories carved out in Clauses (A), (B), (C) and (D) of Rule 3(0 have definite nexus to the object sought to be achieved and by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be discriminatory or unreasonable.
6. We do not find any merit in the challenge to Rule 3(i)(D) of Ordinance No. 159 (Amended) of Nagpur University.
7. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.