Guman Mal Lodha, J.
1. This is a student's civil second appeal who, has been unsuccessful in the two courts below. The short point for consideration is whether when he boycotted the papers of Theory of Economic growth and Economic Planning, the University was justified in taking the average of two paper's marks of theory only and treating the paper of Economic survey as a paper not falling in the category of theory.
2. It is not in dispute that the University decided to give benefit to those who have boycotted the papers by permitting them to get marks as average of three theory papers in which they have appeared or, the papers which they have boycotted whichever is higher. The appellant was given benefit of average of two theory papers as economic survey paper was treated as not a paper of theory.
3. The appellant's grievance is that firstly the economic survey is theory paper and secondly, this decision could not have been taken by the syndicate and could have been taken by the academic council. Shri Dalip Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has relied upon the decision of this Court in Mirza Shokat Beg v. Rajasthan University, AIR 1979 Raj 37 wherein the question was for getting the papers examined by third examiner on a difference of the marks. It was held that the petitioner cannot be blamed for the omission on the part of the University to refer their answer books to the third examiner.
4. Shri C. M. Mathur, the learned counsel for the University, has opposed the appeal of the appellant.
5. I have given a very thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, and have also perused the question formulated by this Court on 6-2-1979 while admitting the appeal.
6. The first question is whether the University was required to decide to hold the examination afresh and not to allow the average of the marks obtained by the examinees in rest of the three papers.
7. I am of the opinion that the question whether in what manner, the benefit should be given to those students who have boycotted the examinations, as a matter of absolute discretion of the University, and unless the mala fides are alleged or, any contravention of particular Act, ordinance, or rules is made, no interference can be made by the Civil Court. I further find that in doing so, there had been no discrimination because of those who have appeared in three theory papers would get the average of 3 papers, and those, who have appeared in two papers would get average of two papers only.
8. Now coming to the question, whether the paper of Economic survey is theory paper or practical paper, reference may be made to page 422 of Hand-Book of the University of Rajasthan Part II, Vol. II, (Edn. J971), Group F of O. 215 under Chapter XXXI mentions the paper of Economic survey and there are notes 2 and 3 which mention that there would be viva voce on the topic of the survey at the time of M.A. Examination. There is further mention that the internal and external examiner shall examine the Economic Survey and conduct the viva voce as equal partners.
9. On the above basis, the University has treated it as paper which cannot be called as theory paper, [n such matters, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Mysore University v. Gopala Gowda, AIR 1965 SC 1932 that the University is best judge to interpret and the Courts cannot sit over its judgment.
10. Yet another argument which was made by Shri Singh was whether the academic council could have decided the question whether afresh examinations should be held or marks should be given to the student who have boycotted by taking average if so in what manner. I do not find any force in the questions framed by this Court on 6-2-79 and there is no valid reason to hold that the syndicate was not competent.
11. I am of the opinion that the judgment of the first appellate Court which confirmed the judgment of the trial Court suffers from no error of law much less error on any substantial question of law.
12. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.