Judgment:
G.G. Sohani, Ag. C.J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows : The petitioner who isa student of the HomeScience College, Jabalpur, appeared for the M.HSc. (Previous), Food and Nutrition, Examination conducted by the respondent University in the year 1988. As the petitioner failed to secure 33 marks out of 100 marks as prescribed, in Paper IV -- Research Methods and Statistics, she was declared to have failed in M.H.Sc. (Previous) Examination, 1988. The petitioner applied for revaluation of her answer book in Paper IV. According to the petitioner, one of the revaluers gave her 55 marks, while the other awarded her 34 marks. The petitioner contends that the respondent-University, by erroneously construing the relevant provisions of the Ordinance relating to revaluation ofmarks, held that the petitioner was entitled to 31 marks only, as a result of revaluation. The petitioner was thereafter declared to have passed by adding two grace marks, but subsequently, the respondent-University modified its decision on the ground that though the petitioner was entitled to get one grace mark only in accordance witb the provisions of the relevant rule, inadvertently, by mistake, 2 marks were added to 31 marks secured by the petitioner on revaluation, and that after adding one grace mark only, the petitioner had secured 32 marks and as such, had failed in the M.H.Sc. (Previous) Examination, 1988. Aggrieved by this action of the University in declaring that the petitioner had failed in the aforesaid examination, the petitioner has filed this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in accordance with the provisions of Clause 8 of Ordinance No. 71, the respondent-Univerity should have arrived at the average of marks to be awarded to the petitioner on the basis of marks awarded to the petitioner by the original examiner and the two revaluers. It was contended that the petitioner had secured on a correct interpretation of the relevant clause of the Ordinance, more than 33 marks in Paper IV and the respondent-University, therefore, erred in law in declaring that the petitioner had failed in the said examination by securing less than 33 marks in Paper IV. It was also contended that whereas in other disciplines, it was not necessary to obtain minimum 33 marks in each paper, the respondent-University had arbitrarily fixed that percentage in the Home Science Discipline. It was also contended that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause and the action of the respondent-University was, therefore, vitiated.
4. In reply, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that there cannot be any comparison between different Disciplines as regards minimum marks to be obtained by a candidate for passing that examination. It was contended that the minimum standard for passing was prescribed by experts in a particular Discipline and that there was absolutely no material for holding that theminimum marks prescribed for passing the examination in the Home Science Faculty was arbitrary. It was further contended that in view of the provisions of Clause 8 of Ordinance No. 71, the decision arrived at by the University that the petitioner had secured 31 marks as a result of revaluation, was justified. It was also contended that the addition of two grace marks was an inadvertent mistake which was subsequently corrected, because under Clause 33 of Ordinance No. 6, the Kulpati was empowered to award one grace mark only. It was also contended that the question of giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner did not arise in the circumstances of the caseand that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the petition deserves to bedismissed. It is not disputed that the marks awarded in Paper IV to the petitioner by the original examiner, were 28. On revaluation by two examiners, the petitioner was awarded 34 marks by one revaluer, and 55 marks by another revaluer. For arriving at the marks to which the petitioner became entitled on account of revaluation, the only relevant provision is clauses of Ordinance No. 71 (Annexure R/3) relating to revaluation of answer books. That clause reads as under :
'If the marks awarded in the paper by any of the two examiners varies from the marks given by the original examiner by more than 10% of the maximum marks in the paper, the average of the marks awarded by two of the examiners, the original examiner and the two revaluers and nearest to each other, will be taken to represent the correct valuatiba This average of marks will be awarded to the candidate for the revision of his result.
Provided that subject to the condition that at least one of the variations from the original marks is more than 10% of the maximum marks in the paper, if two differences in marks allotted by the three examiners are equal, the two marks to the best advantage of the candidate shall be taken into account for arriving at the correct valuation.
Provided further that if the average of the marks thus arrived at is lesser than the originalmarks, the original marks will not be reduced and the result shall remain unchanged. The result of revaluation shall be communicated to the candidate, even if there is no change in the marks.'
6. Now it is not disputed that in view of the fact that the marks awarded to the petitioaer on revaluation varied from the marks given by the original examiner by more than 10% of the maximum marks in the paper, the petitioner became entitled to the award of marks as provided by Clause 8. After revaluation, there were three sets of marks awarded to the petitioner, one by the original examiner and two by the two revaluers. Clause 8, however, prescribes that the average of the marks awarded by two of the examiners has to be taken. The expression 'average', as held by the Supreme Court in Harbans Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 2 SCC 239 : (AIR 1984 NOC 4) means arithmetical mean; to estimate by dividing the aggregate of a series by the number of its units. The average in the instant case has to be worked out as provided by Clause 8 by dividing the marks awarded by two examiners by two. Now who would be those examiners contemplated by Clause 8 from out of three examiners, namely the original examiner and the two revaluers Clause 8 lays down that the marks awarded by two examiners which are nearest to each other, would be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the average. In the instant case, marks nearest to each other are 28 which were awarded by the original examiner and 34 which were awarded by one of the two revaluers. The average of these two marks comes to 31 and the respondent-University was, therefore, right in holding that the marks secured by the petitioner as a result of revaluation, were31. A clause similar to Clauses of Ordinance No. 71 was construed by the two Division Benches of this Court in Kumari Raksha Rani Dube v. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, M.P. No. 810/86, decided on 3-3-1986 and Registrar, Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur v. Ashok Kumar Gupta, M.C.C. No. 276/85, decided on 4-9-1985 in the same way as is construed by us. We were informed at the Bar that the respondent-University has been adopting this practice uniformly. It has not been shown to us that the practice followed by therespondent-University in the case of the petitioner in accordance with the above two decisions of the Court is different from that adopted in any other case. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that in arriving at the number of marks obtained by the petitioner in Paper IV on the basis of revaluation, the respondent-University has erred in law in construing the relevant provision of the Ordinance.
7. As regards other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, that different stadards for passing examinations have been fixed by the University in different Disciplines, suffice it to say that the standard so prescribed is by the experts in that field and unless it is demonstrated that the standard so fixed is arbitrary, no interference can be made in that behalf. As regards the question of compliance with the principles of natural justice, it is not the caseof the petitioner that any penal action had been taken against the petitioner by the respondent-University. The facts were no longer in dispute and the only question in issue was as regards the interpretation of the relevant clause of Ordinance. The decision arrived at by the University in this behalf is according to law and cannot be hejd to be arbitrary or in violation of the principles of natural justice.
8. No case, in our opinion, has been made out for grant of any relief to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner.