Skip to content


Shukadev Sahu Vs. the Administrator, Utkal University - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberO.J.C. No. 600 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1976Ori101
ActsUtkal University Regulations - Regulations 11 and 29
AppellantShukadev Sahu
RespondentThe Administrator, Utkal University
Appellant AdvocateA. Pasayat and ;R.N. Mahanty, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateS.C. Mohapatra and ;S. Rath, Advs.
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
.....in the annual examination, in view of the fact that the petitioner was permitted to take the second examination on compartmen-tal basis in economics group only on the footing that he had failed in only one subject in the annual examination? it is contended that the petitioner was required to secure 33.1/3 per cent marks in the theory papers and he having secured less than the prescribed minimum was rightly declared to have failed in english. accordingly petitioner satisfied the requirements of the relevant regulations. as we are satisfied that a bona fide mistake had been made by the university authorities, we make no order as to costs......per cent of maximum marks in the subject or group of subjects subject to a minimum of 33.1/3 per cent marks in the university examination and 33.1/3 per cent marks in the college internal assessment examination in the paper.' the university authorities have introduced examination in spoken english and 20 marks have been allotted for the same. according to the university authorities out of the full marks of 200 in english, 20 marks allotted for spoken english are to be taken out. from the balance of 180 marks, 20 per cent marks must be taken for internal assessment which come to 36. the remaining 144 marks are intended for the two written papers. petitioner's marks in english in the annual examination were as follows:-- paper-i-10paper-ii-35spoken english-9total-54 out of 164 = 32.926.....
Judgment:

R.N. Misra, J.

1. Petitioner appeared at the Bachelor's Examination in Commerce held by the Utkal University in April, 1974, as a regular candidate from the Ravenshaw College at Cuttack. He obtained 369 marks out of a total of 1000 as per the mark-list (Annexure 1), He secured the following marks in English and Economics:--

English, Paper-I -- 10)

Paper-II -- 35) Out of 200

Paper-III -- 9)

College marks -- 19)

Economics, Paper-I -- 14)

Paper-II -- 30) Out of 300

Paper-III -- 9)

College marks -- 26)

Petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the Examination as he secured less than 100 marks in the Economics group. Under the Regulations of the University, a candidate securing more than 360 marks and getting plucked in one subject is entitled to appear in that subject only which is ordinarily called as Compartmental Examination. Petitioner took the Second B. Com. Examination held in September, 1974, in the Economics group only, but was declared to have been unsuccessful. As a fact he secured 115 marks out of 300 as per the mark list (Annexure 2). On enquiry he was told that though he had passed in the Economics group in the Second Examination, he had actually failed in the English group in the first Examination and, therefore, he cannot be declared to have passed the B. Com. (Pass) Examination of the University. According to the petitioner, he had passed in English in the Annual Examination and it was on that basis that he had been permitted to sit at the Second Examination in the Economics group only. The decision of the University that he has not passed is accordingly bad and a direction should be given to the University to declare him to have passed the B. Com. Pass Examination held by the University.

2. The Deputy Registrar of the University in the affidavit in opposition has claimed that the petitioner did not pass in English in the Annual Examination and, therefore, the University had rightly declared the petitioner to have failed.

3. Two questions mainly arise for determination: --

(1) Whether the petitioner did pass in English in the Annual Examination? And

(2) In case he had not, is the University precluded from contending that the petitioner had failed in English in the Annual Examination, in view of the fact that the petitioner was permitted to take the Second Examination on Compartmen-tal basis in Economics group only on the footing that he had failed in only one subject in the Annual Examination?

4. Under the relevant Regulation 10 (1) of Chapter III, the examination in Commerce is to be conducted by means of written papers. Internal Assessment Examination in the tutorial classes for collegiate candidates is to be held and the maximum marks in theory papers at the University Examination in each subject are to be reduced by 20 per cent and marks obtained by a candidate at the University Examination on the basis of such reduced marks are to be increased by the candidate's college internal assessment marks in the tutorial examinations. Regulation 29 (a) provides :

'In order to pass in a subject or group of subjects in the pass course in the Degree Examination in Commerce, a collegiate candidate shall secure not less than 33.1/3 per cent of maximum marks in the subject or group of subjects subject to a minimum of 33.1/3 per cent marks in the University Examination and 33.1/3 per cent marks in the college internal assessment examination in the paper.' The University authorities have introduced examination in spoken English and 20 marks have been allotted for the same. According to the University Authorities out of the full marks of 200 in English, 20 marks allotted for spoken English are to be taken out. From the balance of 180 marks, 20 per cent marks must be taken for internal assessment which come to 36. The remaining 144 marks are intended for the two written papers. Petitioner's marks in English in the Annual Examination were as follows:-- Paper-I-10Paper-II-35Spoken English-9Total-54 out of 164 = 32.926 per cent.Internal assessment-19 out of 36 = 50.2 per cent.

It is contended that the petitioner was required to secure 33.1/3 per cent marks in the theory papers and he having secured less than the prescribed minimum was rightly declared to have failed in English.

Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that there is no requirement under the Regulations to deduct the 20 marks allotted for spoken English out of the total marks of 200 and thereafter work out the total marks for internal assessment examination and the theory papers. Counsel for the University has not been able to satisfy us that the Regulations justify the stand taken by the University. As already indicated, under Regulation 11 (b) in Chapter III, the maximum marks in theory papers at the University Examination in each subject are to toe reduced by 20 per cent and the said 20 per cent marks are intended for internal assessment examinations. There is no provision that marks meant for spoken English are to be deducted from the marks allotted for theory papers. If that was the true intention, the Regulation should have been suitably amended and marks allotted for spoken English, should have been kept separately from marks for the theory papers.

Out of the maximum marks of 200 meant for English, 20 per cent working out at 40 must be taken for internal assessment examination leaving the remaining 160 for the written papers as also spoken English. 'Spoken English' as a subject having not been indicated in the relevant Regulation, the requirement of securing 33.1/3 per cent in the theory papers must be worked out by adding the marks secured in written papers as also in spoken English. Petitioner secured 54 marks in all in Papers I and II and spoken English out of 160 which work out to more than 33.1/3 per cent. Accordingly petitioner satisfied the requirements of the relevant Regulations.

Petitioner was permitted to take the Compartmental Examination in Economics group only on the footing that he had passed in all other subjects. The stand of the University is not justified in the facts of the case. We would accordingly conclude that petitioner had duly passed in English in the Annual Examination and on that footing he had rightly been permitted to sit at the Compartmental Examination held in September, 1974 and having passed in the Economics group, should have been declared to have passed the B. Com. Pass Examination of the University.

In view of what has been found, it is unnecessary to deal with the second contention canvassed before us.

5. We would accordingly allow the application and direct the University to publish the result of the petitioner on the basis of the marks secured by him at the Examinations held by the University to have passed the B. Com. Pass Examination. As we are satisfied that a bona fide mistake had been made by the University authorities, we make no order as to costs.

Panda, J.

6. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //