http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BHUSHAN UTTAM KHARE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DEAN, B.J. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/01/1992

BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH: PANDIAN, S.R. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR  917            1992 SCR  (1) 386  1992 SCC  (2) 220        JT 1992 (1)   583  1992 SCALE  (1)191

ACT:      Poona  University  Act, 1974- Ordinance 134A  and  146- Revaluation  of  answer  books-Whether  second   revaluation permissible.

HEADNOTE:      Consequent  upon  the  announcement  of  his   M.B.B.S. Examination  result on 12.12.1990, the petitioner  alongwith other 166 students, applied for revaluation of answer  books under   University  of  Poona  Ordinance  134A.   When   the revaluation  results  were declared, certain  students  made representation  to  the  University  Authorities  for  their answer papers being revalued from the same set of examiners. The  University  on  consideration  of  that  representation appointed  a  Committee for scrutiny and to  reasses  theory papers  of the students acquiring more than 20% marks  after revaluation,  from  senior teachers of the  Faculty.   After scrutiny, it was found out that the marks are closer to  the original  marks  in  Medicine, Surgery  and  Preventive  and Social  Medicine.  The Committee therefore recommended  that the  entire revaluation of the papers should  be  cancelled. The  Executive Council by a resolution cancelled the  result of  the revaluation and directed fresh revaluation  and  the second  revaluation was done through the  examiners  outside the  State  and the result declared on  the  basis  thereof. The peritioner and others challenged the aforesaid  decision of the Executive Council cancelling the earlier  revaluation and  directing  a  second  revaluation  by  means  of   writ petitions.  It was contended before the High Court on behalf of the petitioners that the action of the Executive  Council was arbitrary in as much as there was no malpractice,  fraud or   anything  objectionable  to  the  revaluation  as   the examiners  were  chosen by the Vice-Chancellor  as  enjoined under the Ordinance.  Hence the cancellation of  revaluation was not proper.  The High Court repelled the two contentions advanced before it and dismissed the writ petitions.   Hence this Petition for Special Leave to appeal.      Dismissing  the Petition for special leave  to  appeal, this Court,      HELD: In deciding the matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions, the Court should

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

normally be                                                        387 very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling  within the jurisdiction of educational  authorities should  normally  be left to their decision  and  the  Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. [390 B]      Under Ordinance 134A, the Vice-Chancellor shall use his discretionary  power  to  decide  as  to  whether  all   the applications   received from the candidates, considered  for revaluation  or  not.   If as a  result  of  revaluation  of answer-books,  the marks obtained by the candidate  increase over the original marks by 10% or more then only the  result of revaluation will be accepted by the University. [388 C-D]      Ordinance  146  is  comprehensive  enough  to   include revaluation  also  for further action.  The  fact  that  two examiners  were  also  the members of  the  Committee  which recommended  for revaluation cannot result in any bias  even if  they  had  been directly  concerned  with  the  original evaluation.  It is true that in the second revaluation  also there  had been some changes between the original  valuation and the revaluation results.  However, it is not so  glaring or  demonstrably  unconscionable  as  seen   in  the   first revaluation. [390 D]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special  leave  Petition (Civil) No. 10330 of 1991.      From  the  Judgement and Order dated  3.5.1991  of  the Bomaby High ourt in writ Petition No. 186 of 1991.      Kapil Sibal, Makrand D. Adkar and Ejaz Maqbool  for the Petitioner.      R.D.  Tulpule, D.M. Nargolkar, Ms. Kiran Bhagalia,  Ms. V.D.Khanna and A.M. Khanwilkar for the respondents.      Caveator-in-person.      The following Order of the Court was delivered.      The  petitioner, Bhushan Uttam Khare, appeared for  the Third Year M.B.B.S. Examination held by University of  Poona in  the  months of October-November, 1990.  The  results  of the   said examination were declared on 12.12.1990.  As  per University  of Poona Ordinance 134A, the petitioner  applied for   revaluation  of  his  answer  papers.   167   students including the petitioner had applied for revaluation.   When the revaluation results were declared, certain students made representation  to  the  University  authorities  for  their answer papers being revaluate from the same set of examiners.                                                        388      On receipt of the representation, the Executive Council of University appointed a Committee to make an enquiry.   On the report of the Committee, the University of Poona decided to  cancel the revaluation  results and to  conduct  further revaluation.    This  decision  of  the  Executive   Council cancelling  the earlier revaluation and directing  a  second revaluation  was challenged by the petitioner and others  in writ  petitions filed before the High Court at  Bomaby.   By the  impugned  judgement dated May 3, 1991  the  High  Court dismissed  the writ petitions.  Aggrieved by the  decisions, the petitioners have moved this petition for special leave.      The  Poona University Act, 1974 defines the powers  and duties of the Executive Council.  The Executive Council  may make   Ordinances  to  provide  for  the  conduct   of   the examinations.   Under  Ordinance 134A,  the  Vice-Chancellor shall  use his discretionery powers to decide as to  whether

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

all  the  applications  received  from  the  candidates,  be considered  for  revaluation  or not.  If  as  a  result  of revaluation  of  answer-books, the  marks  obtained  by  the candidate increase over the original marks by 10% or more of the  marks  carried  by the paper then only  the  result  of revaluation will be accepted by the University.  Application for vertification of answer-books will be entertained within a  period of two weeks from the date of declaration  of  the results.      Ordinance 146 reads:          "146.   In  any  case where it is  found  that  the          result  of  an  examination has  been  affected  by          error,  malpractice,  fraud,  improper  conduct  or          other  course of whatsoever nature,  the  Executive          Council  shall have power to amend such  result  in          such  manner  as shall be in accord with  the  true          position  and  to  make  such  declaration  as  the          Executive Council shall consider necessary in  that          behalf.   Provided that, but subject to  0.147,  no          result shall be amended after the expiration of six          months  from  the date of publication of  the  said          result".      In  the Third Year M.B.B.S. Examination,  402  students appeared   for   the  examination  and  167   students   for revaluation of the answer-books.  When the representation of students  opting  for  revaluation  was  placed  before  the Executive  Council  as glaring difference was  indicated,  a Committee was appointed for scrutiny and to reassess  theory papers  of the students acquiring more than 20% marks  after revaluation,  from  senior teachers of the  Faculty.   After scrutiny, it was found out that the marks are closer to  the original  marks  in  Medicine, Surgery  and  Preventive  and Social Medicine.  Therefore, the Committee recommended  that the  entire revaluation of the papers should  be  cancelled. This report of the                                                        389 Committee  was  placed before the Executive Council  in  its meeting  held  on  March 27, 1991 and  the  Council  by  the resolution  cancelled  the  result of  the  revaluation  and directed fresh revaluation.  The second revaluation was done through the examiners outside the State.      The  results  on revaluation intimated to  the  Medical College  thus  stood cancelled and the  final  results  were delcared in pursuance to the second revaluation.  The action of the Executive Council was attacked on the grounds that it was  an arbitrary action; that the choice of  the  examiners was  that  of  the Vice-Chancellor  as  enjoined  under  the Ordinance   and  there  was  no  glaring  instance  of   any malpractice,  fraud or other course of whatsoever nature  to cancel  the revaluation and in the absence of any  provision in  the statute or the Ordinance for a  second  revaluation, the  decision taken by the Executive Council is  unwarranted and, therefore, illegal.      In  repelling  these contentions, the  High  Court  has taken the view that educational institutions set up  Enquiry Committee  to  deal with problem posed by  the  adoption  of unfair  means and  it  is  normally  within  their  domestic jurisdiction  to  decide all questions in the light  of  the material   adduced.   Unless  there  is  an   absolute   and compelling   justification,  the  Writ  Court  is  slow   to interfere  with  the autonomous activity  of  the  Executive Councils.   The High Court said that the material on  record indicated   that  this  is  not  a  case  for  exercise   of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and since the  Court  has found that there is material  to  reach  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

decision  as regards cancellation of the impugned result  of revaluation, the contentions taken up by the petitioner  are untenable.      The  petitioners have reiterated  the submissions  that there  had  been no improper conduct come to light  and  the absence  of any provision for a second revaluation  vitiates the whole action.  We have been taken through a  comparative chart   containing  the  marks  awarded  in   the   original examination,   the   first  revaluation   and   the   second revaluation.   The  attempt of the learned counsel  for  the petitioners had been to make out that the  disparity was not such  as  to  indicate any improper practice  and  that  the Committee constituted consisted  of four members of whom two were  original  examiners and the report submitted  by  that Committee  should  not  have been made  the  basis  for  the decision which affected the prospects and career of a  large number  of medical students.  The learned counsel   for  the University  as also the standing counsel for the State  drew our  attention to the fact that Executive Council  had  only cautiously  proceeded  in  the matter  and  before  ordering cancellation a probe was made and the mem-                                                        390 bers  of  the Enquiry Committee were competent  persons  and that  there is no illegality which warrants interference  of the Court.      We  have considered all the materials placed before  us in the light of arguments advanced keeping in mind the  well accepted principle that in deciding the matters relating  to orders  passed by authorities of  educational  institutions, the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to  their decision and the Court should interfere with them only  when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice.  We  are satisfied that there had been sufficient material before the Executive  Council to proceed in the manner in which it  has done.   It  is not correct to say that  the  University  had acted   on  non-existing  rule  for  ordering   revaluation. Ordinance 146 is comprehensive enough to include revaluation also  for further action.  The fact that two examiners  were also  the  members of the Committee  which  recommended  for revaluation cannot result in any bias even if they had  been directly concerned with the original evaluation.  It is true that  in  the second revaluation also there  had  been  some changes    between   the   original   valuation   and    the revaluation  results.   However,  it is not  so  glaring  or demonstrably   unconscionable   as   seen   in   the   first revaluation.  We cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the petitioner that the High Court had erred in not granting the relief sought for.  We can only observe that the case of the petitioner, who alone has come before this Court and who had  secured higher marks in the first revaluation  and  is, therefore, aggrieved by the cancellation of the same,  would by  duly  considered  in  the  selection  for  Post-Graduate Course. The special leave petition is dismissed. Y.L.                                    SLP dismissed.                                                        391