University that the petitioners and the other students like them are
provided with the facility of revaluation as an additional facility and
there is no right in them to seek revaluation. We do not find any force
in the submission made on behalf of the University that there is no right
to seek revaluation. We find on a reading of Direction No.5 of 2004
that the students are entitled to make applications seeking revaluation
of their answersheets. The very fact that the petitioners were declared
unsuccessful initially as per the results declared on 16/06/2015 and are
declared successful after revaluation, clearly shows that it was the fault
of the University in not awarding appropriate marks to the petitioners at
the first valuation. The fact that the petitioners were initially declared
unsuccessful and are declared successful after revaluation clearly shows
that the facility is deserved. We have witnessed that sometimes some
worthy students are either declared unsuccessful or are awarded
extremely low marks in the initial valuation and after revaluation they
are declared successful and their marks are increased significantly. At
least, in case of such students, it cannot be said that revaluation is an
additional facility which the University has granted to the students due
to its generosity.
8. We do not find any force in the submission made on behalf
of the University that the revaluation results were declared within a
period of 65 days. We are not inclined to reckon the period from the
date of making of the application for revaluation as the results were
declared in the case of the petitioners on 16/06/2015 and the
declaration of the revaluation results was on 05/10/2015. This clearly
shows that the results of the petitioners were declared after a period of
110 days from the date of declaration of the results. We find that there
is a gross delay in the declaration of the results of the petitioners in the
instant case. The submission made on behalf of the University that
about 135 to 140 days are required for completing the process of
revaluation is ridiculous. If this is accepted, the results of the students
would not be declared till the next supplementary examination. Also,
the students would not be entitled to admission in the subsequent year
of the same course or to a new course if the last date for submission of
the marksheet for appearing at the examination of the advanced course
or the next year of the same course is 25th of September. The
revaluation facility would be illusory. The students may not know till
the beginning of the supplementary examination whether they would or
would not be required to appear at the supplementary examination, if
the revaluation results are declared in 135 to 140 days.
9. Also, we find that the principle of lex non cogit ad
impossibilia would apply to the facts of this case. The petitioners cannot
be asked to do something that is impossible and is not within the reach
of the petitioners. The petitioners had applied for revaluation and it
was the duty of the respondent No.2University to reevaluate the
answersheets within a reasonable time. If the University was at fault
in not declaring the revaluation results of the petitioners before the
stipulated date, i.e. 25/09/2015, the petitioners cannotbenonsuited for
not submitting the marksheets before that date.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6293 OF 2015
Ms. Sneha Fulchand Hargude,
...VERSUS...
Joint Director of Technical Education,
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : 01.03.2016
Citation: 2016(3) ALLMR577
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally, as the notice for final disposal was issued to the
respondents on 20/11/2015 and the respondents are duly served.
2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the
communication of the respondent No.3College of Pharmacy, dated
18/11/2015, rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners for
permission to appear at the M.Pharm., PartI Examination, on the
directions of the University.
3. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus –
The petitioners had appeared at the B.Pharm. Final
Examination in Summer 2015 and were declared unsuccessful in some
of the subjects. The petitioners, therefore, applied for revaluation in
terms of the Direction of the Nagpur University, bearing No.5 of 2004.
It is the case of the petitioners that though the revaluation result is
required to be declared within a period of 45 days, the result was not
declared by the University within a reasonable time and the petitioners
were, therefore, provisionally admitted in the M.Pharm Course, subject
to the declaration of their B.Pharm. results. The petitioners attended the
M.Pharm. PartI classes and also submitted their practical record to the
respondent No.3College. Since the result of revaluation was not
declared within a reasonable time, the petitioners approached this
Court to seek a direction to the respondents to declare the revaluation
results of the petitioners. Though the last date for submission of the
marksheet of the previous examination was 25/09/2015, the
petitioners were not able to submit the marksheet of the B.Pharm. Final
Examination to the respondent No.3College, as the revaluation results
were not declared by then. Since the petitioners failed to submit the
marksheet before the cutoff date, the University asked the College not
to permit the petitioners to appear at the First Semester Examination of
the M. Pharm. Course. On the say of the University, the respondent
No.3 College prohibited the petitioners from appearing at the First
Semester Examination of the M.Pharm. Course. In the circumstances of
the case, the petitioners have challenged the action on the part of the
University and the College, of prohibiting the petitioners from
appearing at the First Semester Examination of the M.Pharm Course.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners were not at fault in not submitting the marksheet of the
final year B.Pharm. Examination to the concerned authorities before
25/09/2015, as the results of the revaluation were declared on
05/10/2015. It is submitted that the petitioners could not have been
directed to do something that is impossible and not within the control
of the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners have passed the
B.Pharm. Final Examination after revaluation and it is due to the fault
of the University that the petitioners were declared unsuccessful when
the results were initially declared on 16/06/2015. It is stated that the
petitioners could not submit the marksheet of the B.Pharm. Degree
Course to the concerned authorities before 25/09/2015, as the
University had not declared the revaluation results. It is stated that
since in view of the interim directions, the respondents had permitted
the petitioners to appear at the First Semester M. Pharm. Examination
and since the petitioners are declared successful in the B.Pharm. Degree
Course, the admission of the petitioners in the M.Pharm.Degree Course
needs to be protected. It is submitted that the students like the
petitioners should not be made to suffer because of the inaction on the
part of the University to declare the results of revaluation, within a
reasonable time.
5. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2
University, supported the action of the University. It was denied that the
revaluation results are liable to be declared within a period of 45 days.
It is stated that till 2001, the University was required to declare the
revaluation results within a period of 45 days, but after Direction No.5
of 2004 was notified by the Nagpur University, there is no time
prescribed for declaration of the revaluation results. It is stated that the
revaluation results could be declared within a period of 135140 days as
could be gathered from the various clauses of Direction No.5 of 2004.
It is stated that in the instant case, the petitioners' results were initially
declared on 16/06/2015 and the petitioners had applied for grant of
photocopies of the answersheets on 20/06/2015. It is stated that the
applications of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were dispatched by the
College to the University on 29/06/2015 and 30/06/2015 respectively.
It is stated that the forms of the petitioners were sent to the godown on
16/07/2015 and the answersheets were received from the godown on
26/07/2015. It is stated that the photocopies of the answersheets of
the petitioners were sent to the College on 17/08/2015 and
20/08/2015. It is stated that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 applied for
revaluation on 28/08/2015 and 30/08/2015 respectively. It is stated
that the marks secured by the petitioners as per the results declared on
16/06/2015 were entered into the tabulation register on 14/09/2015.
It is stated that thereafter, on 01/10/2015, the duly constituted
Committee decided that the answersheets of the petitioners could be
reevaluated. It is stated that the reevaluation of the answersheets was
completed on 04/10/2015 and the revaluation results were declared on
05/10/2015. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, it cannot
be said that the University was at fault in not declaring the results of the
revaluation till 05/10/2015. It is submitted that the approximate time
to declare the revaluation results would be 135 to 140 days for the
engineering courses and for the other courses the time would be lessor
by 30 to 45 days. It is stated that the petitioners do not have a right to
get the answersheets revalued and that is an additional facility
provided to the petitioners by the University. It is stated that in this
case, the results have been declared within a period of 65 days from the
date of the receipt of the applications for revaluation by the University.
The learned counsel for the University relied on the clauses in Direction
No.5 of 2014 to substantiate his submission. It is submitted that since
the petitioners were permitted to appear at the First Semester
Examination of M.Pharm. Course in terms of the interim directions, an
appropriate order may be passed.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find
that the University was at fault in not declaring the revaluation results
of the petitioners within a reasonable time. On the basis of the data
furnished by the learned counsel for the University, we find that the
University did not proceed diligently in the matter of revaluation of the
answersheets of the petitioners. It is pertinent to note that the results
of B.Pharm. Final Examination were declared on 16/06/2015 and the
petitioners had immediately applied for photocopies of their answersheets
on 20/06/2015. It is no doubt true that the College dispatched
the applications of the petitioners for supplying the photocopies of the
answersheets to the University on 29/06/2015 and 30/06/2015. We
fail to understand as to why the University wasted the time from
30/06/2015 till it asked for the supply of the answersheets from the
godown on 16/07/2015. We find that a period of nearly 16 days was
wasted in only sending the requisition to the godown for supply of the
answersheets. The answersheets could have been received from the
godown earlier, but they were received on 26/07/2015. The
photocopies of the answersheets were then dispatched to the College
without any diligence on 17/08/2015 and 20/08/2015. We wonder
why 20 days should be required only for sending the photocopies of the
answersheets that were received from the godown to the respondentCollege.
Immediately on the receipt of the answersheets, the
petitioners applied for revaluation on 28/08/2015 and 30/08/2015.
After that, time of 14 days was wasted and the marks secured by the
petitioners initially were recorded in the tabulation register on
14/09/2015. If the marks secured by the petitioners in all the subjects
were already entered into the tabulation register before 16/06/2015, it
is difficult to gauge as to why the marks that were entered in the initial
tabulation register could not be entered into the tabulation register
pertaining to revaluation, for 14 days. The Committee for considering
whether the applications of the students are genuine and whether
revaluation could be ordered, decided on 01/10/2015 that the answersheets
of the petitioners could be reevaluated. It is necessary to note
that the time required to reevaluate the answersheets of the petitioners
was only 4 days i.e. between 01/10/2015 to 04/10/2015. It is only at
this stage that the University has acted diligently. We find that there
was no delay whatsoever in actual reevaluation of the papers and the
delay in declaring the revaluation results is attributable to the
negligence on the part of the University at all earlier stages. If the
University prescribes a date i.e. 25/09/2015 for submission of the marksheet
of the previous examination for admission to an other advanced
course, it is least expected of the University to declare the revaluation
results of the students before that date. Even if it is assumed that the
requirement of submission of the marksheet of the previous
examination before 25/09/2015 is based on the directions of the State
Government, there is an expectation that the University would declare
the results of revaluation at least before that date, so that the students
are able to produce the marksheet after revaluation before
25/09/2015, as per the requirement. The University cannot direct the
cancellation of the admission of the students when it is at fault in not
declaringtherevaluationresults of the students within a reasonable time.
7. There is no merit in the submission made on behalf of the
University that the petitioners and the other students like them are
provided with the facility of revaluation as an additional facility and
there is no right in them to seek revaluation. We do not find any force
in the submission made on behalf of the University that there is no right
to seek revaluation. We find on a reading of Direction No.5 of 2004
that the students are entitled to make applications seeking revaluation
of their answersheets. The very fact that the petitioners were declared
unsuccessful initially as per the results declared on 16/06/2015 and are
declared successful after revaluation, clearly shows that it was the fault
of the University in not awarding appropriate marks to the petitioners at
the first valuation. The fact that the petitioners were initially declared
unsuccessful and are declared successful after revaluation clearly shows
that the facility is deserved. We have witnessed that sometimes some
worthy students are either declared unsuccessful or are awarded
extremely low marks in the initial valuation and after revaluation they
are declared successful and their marks are increased significantly. At
least, in case of such students, it cannot be said that revaluation is an
additional facility which the University has granted to the students due
to its generosity.
8. We do not find any force in the submission made on behalf
of the University that the revaluation results were declared within a
period of 65 days. We are not inclined to reckon the period from the
date of making of the application for revaluation as the results were
declared in the case of the petitioners on 16/06/2015 and the
declaration of the revaluation results was on 05/10/2015. This clearly
shows that the results of the petitioners were declared after a period of
110 days from the date of declaration of the results. We find that there
is a gross delay in the declaration of the results of the petitioners in the
instant case. The submission made on behalf of the University that
about 135 to 140 days are required for completing the process of
revaluation is ridiculous. If this is accepted, the results of the students
would not be declared till the next supplementary examination. Also,
the students would not be entitled to admission in the subsequent year
of the same course or to a new course if the last date for submission of
the marksheet for appearing at the examination of the advanced course
or the next year of the same course is 25th of September. The
revaluation facility would be illusory. The students may not know till
the beginning of the supplementary examination whether they would or
would not be required to appear at the supplementary examination, if
the revaluation results are declared in 135 to 140 days.
9. Also, we find that the principle of lex non cogit ad
impossibilia would apply to the facts of this case. The petitioners cannot
be asked to do something that is impossible and is not within the reach
of the petitioners. The petitioners had applied for revaluation and it
was the duty of the respondent No.2University to reevaluate the
answersheets within a reasonable time. If the University was at fault
in not declaring the revaluation results of the petitioners before the
stipulated date, i.e. 25/09/2015, the petitioners cannotbenonsuited for
not submitting the marksheets before that date.
10. In the circumstances of the case, we allow the writ petition
and quash and set aside the impugned order cancelling the admission of
the petitioners in M.Pharm. Degree Course and refusing permission to
appear at the M.Pharm. Examination for not producing the marksheet
of B.Pharm. Examination before the cutoff date i.e. 25/09/2015. We
direct the respondent No.2University to protect the admission of the
petitioners in the M.Pharm.Degree Course.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment