A. Sidharta and Others Vs. Ntr University of Health Sciences and Others

A. Sidharta and Others vs Ntr University of Health Sciences and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Oct 01, 1999

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/424693

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/424693
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: B.S.A. Swamy, J.
Decided On: Oct 01, 1999
Case Number: WP No. 19624 of 1999
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution - aggregate marks - respondent-University detained petitioners in third semester on ground that they did not secure 50% of aggregate marks - Regulation 15 provided that in case student obtains 40% marks in theory and aggregate of 50% marks in theory and orals taken together he can be declared passed - s...

Key legal issue: Constitution

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Sidharta and Others

Advocate Mr. M. Ravindranath Reddy, Adv.

Respondent

Ntr University of Health Sciences and Others

Advocate Mr. K.G.K. Prasad, SC for NTR University of Health Sciences

Legal References

Reported In: 2000(1)ALD196; 1999(6)ALT333

Excerpt

.....the act to seek compensation under section 166 of the act resulting in award passed by the tribunal. therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. the owner is therefore, tortfeasor. section 168: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers limit of liability - held, it is well settled that the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the act, instead of seeking compensation under the workmens compensation act. on facts, held, the material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. the settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye...........in the subject in university examinations conducted and aggregate of 50% marks in theory and orals taken together (there is no minimum marks prescribed for orals) (b) 40% of marks in the university theory examination; 50% marks in university practical/clinical examination; and 50% aggregate in theory, practical/ clinical and oral marks taken together (there is no minimum marks prescribed for orals) regulation xvi: 1. second class - 50% and above but less than 65% of total marks. 2. first class - 65% and above but less than 75% of total marks and having passed the examination in first attempt. 3. distinction -75% and above of total marks and having passed the examination in first attempt. regulation xxv: scheme of examination for bachelor of kl physiotherapy: scheme of examination as follows : (i) duration of written examination -3 hours (ii) practical marks include marks for record book - 10 marks (iii) t - theory; p - practical; o - orals bachelor of physiotherapy: scheme of examination -- semester system sl. no.semestersubjectmarks theoryoralpractical3.iiimicrobiologypathology100-- gen.med. includingelements of pharma./ge. surgery/paediatrics100-- nursingand first aid100--4. from the above regulations, it is seen that in the subject of microbiology/ pathology, no oral examination is there and the student has to write only theory examination.5. the counsel for the respondent-university contends that as per the regulations of the university, one should get 50% marks to get through the examination and he placed reliance on clause xv of the regulations as extracted supra. but i am afraid that i cannot accede to the contention of the counsel for the respondent for the simple reason that regulation xv deals with qualifying marks for pass which was already extracted supra. the language used in regulation xv is that a candidate shall be declared to have passedin the examination if he or she obtains the qualifying marks 40% marks in theory and aggregate of 50%.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The petitioners, 14 in number, who are studying decree in Physiotherapy-Ill Semester in respondent-University filed this writ petition questioning the action of the respondent-University in detaining them in the III Semester on the ground that they did not secure 50% of the aggregate marks in the examination whereas under the Regulation No.15, a candidate has to be declared as passed in the examinationif he gets 40% marks in theory and if orals are also there, the candidate should get aggregate of 50% marks in both theory and oral put together.

2. The Counsel for the respondent-University strenuously opposed the relief sought for in this writ petition by contending that unless a student gets 50% marks, he cannot be declared as passed in the examination whether oral examination is there or not.

3. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it is useful to extract regulations framed by the University for this course :

'Regulation XV:

A candidate shall be declared to have passed the examination if he/she obtains the following qualifying marks:

(a) 40% marks of theory in the subject in University examinations conducted and aggregate of 50% marks in theory and orals taken together (there is no minimum marks prescribed for orals)

(b) 40% of marks in the University theory examination; 50% marks in University practical/clinical examination; and 50% aggregate in theory, practical/ clinical and oral marks taken together (there is no minimum marks prescribed for orals)

Regulation XVI:

1. Second Class - 50% and above but less than 65% of total marks.

2. First Class - 65% and above but less than 75% of total marks and having passed the examination in first attempt.

3. Distinction -75% and above of total marks and having passed the examination in first attempt.

Regulation XXV:

Scheme of Examination For Bachelor of KL Physiotherapy:

Scheme of Examination as follows :

(i) Duration of written examination -3 hours

(ii) Practical marks include marks for record book - 10 marks

(iii) T - Theory; P - Practical; O - Orals Bachelor of Physiotherapy:

Scheme of Examination -- Semester System

Sl. No.SemesterSubjectMarks TheoryOralPractical

3.IIIMicrobiologyPathology100-- Gen.Med. includingelements of pharma./Ge. Surgery/Paediatrics100-- Nursingand First Aid100--

4. From the above regulations, it is seen that in the subject of Microbiology/ Pathology, no oral examination is there and the student has to write only theory examination.

5. The Counsel for the respondent-University contends that as per the Regulations of the University, one should get 50% marks to get through the examination and he placed reliance on clause XV of the Regulations as extracted supra. But I am afraid that I cannot accede to the contention of the counsel for the respondent for the simple reason that Regulation XV deals with qualifying marks for pass which was already extracted supra. The language used in Regulation XV is that a candidate shall be declared to have passedin the examination if he or she obtains the qualifying marks 40% marks in theory and aggregate of 50% marks in theory and orals taken together. If once oral examination is not there, the question of getting any marks in oral examination does not arise. When once the University made it clear that a person who gets 40% marks in theory will be declared to have passed the examination, the question of adding marks in the oral examination does not arise, if there are no orals. The Counsel for respondent-University placed reliance on Regulation XVI which deals with classification of the results. It is common knowledge that in every examination a candidate who secures qualifying marks will be treated as passed in the examination and on the basis of the marks obtained by the student, division will be awarded to him i.e., III, II and I and Distinction. In this case, by interpreting both Regulations XV and XVI it has to be held that a student who gets 40% marks in theory where is there is no oral examination in a particular subject can be declared as passed in the examination and the question of getting 50% marks will arise only when orals are there. Likewise, a student who gets above 50% but less than 65% will be given II Class and a student who gets 65% to 75% will be given I Class and a student who secures more than 75% will be declared to have passed the examination in distinction.

6. Hence, I find sufficient force in the contention of the petitioners and accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, a direction is given to the respondent to treat the petitioners who secured 40% marks in theory where there is no oral examination as passed in the examination and declare their results accordingly.

7. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1999 Same Parties A. Sidharta and Others vs Ntr University of Health Sciences a... Same Subject Constitution Same Judge B.S.A. Swamy, J.

Constitution