ORDER
1. Jagat Narain Gupta in this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents Punjab University and its Vice-Chancellor to include three marks of re-evaluation in Fifth Semester in total of the result and declare the petitioner as topper in the University in LL.B. (Final) Examination, 1988 and for issuing any other appropriate writ, direction or order as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Jagat Narain Gupta petitioner and Jasdeep Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, took admission in the Department of Laws in first year in 1985. The LL.B. course for professionals is for three years, consisting of six semesters. For admission to the fifth semester i.e. Third Yearof LL.B. Course (Professional), a candidate was required to have B.L. Degree as a regular student. The petitioner Jagat Narain Gupta as well as the respondent Jasdeep Singh possessed such degrees and were admitted. Raj-neesh Kumar Gupta, respondent No. 4, had appeared in the examination but his result was later on. He also was admitted in the Fifth Semester. The examination of the Fifth Semester was held in Dec., 1987. Jagat Narain Gupta petitioner and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta respondent passed the Fifth Semester Examination. The petitioner and Jasdeep Singh respondents were not satisfied with the result of the Fifth Semester and they applied for re-evaluation of some of the papers. The petitioner applied for re-evaluation of Customary Law paper whereas Jasdeep Singh respondent applied for re-evaluation in various papers. After re-evaluation, the petitioner was awarded 58 marks instead of 55 marks in Customary Law paper whereas Jasdeep Singh respondent No. 3 got an increase of five marks in the result. The increase of three marks in the case of the petitioner was not added in the result whereas the increase of five marks obtained by Jasdeep Singh was added in his total. The petitioner's aggregate of Fifth Semester Examination remained as 337 marks whereas Jasdeep Singh respondent's aggregate was increased from 343 marks to 348 marks. Thereafter examination of Sixth Semester also took place, result of which was declared. The total number of marks obtained by the petitioner in Fifth and Sixth Semester Examinations were clubbed as per rules and he passed the examination by security 337 + 359 = 696 marks. Jasdeep Singh respondent No. 3 also passed the Sixth Semester Examination getting 343 + 5 + 349 = 697 marks. Rajneesh Kumar Gupta also passed the examination by getting 330 + 367 = 697 marks. The case of the petitioner is that by adding 3 marks of re-evaluation to the total marks obtained in Fifth and Sixth Semester Examinations, he would have got 699 marks and would have been a topper i.e. he would have secured position in the University Merit List. The act of the University in not giving him credit of three marks was in violation of Rules 9.2 and 10 contained in Punjab University Calendar, 1985 (Vol. III).
3. The stand taken up by the University in the written statement is that as per interpretation of R.9.2 referred to above, the result of the petitioner was not required to be amended as he secured less than 5 per cent marks increase. There was no position in the University Merit List for passing Fifth Semester Examination. Such a list is only prepared in Sixth Semester Examination. Since on re-evaluation marks were to be increased in the Fifth Semester Examination, credit of the same could not be given in the Sixth Semester Examination.
4. The result of the petition depends upon the interpretation to be placed upon Rules 9.2 and 10 of the Punjab University Calendar, 1985 (Volume III) at page 438 which read as under:--
'9.2 The Result of a candidate will be changed on re-evaluation only if the character; of result is changed (Character means 'Fail' to 'Pass' or 'Compartment', 'Comp.' to 'Pass' or vice versa, change in division, in aggregate, or position in the University merit list) or where on re-evaluation the score increases/decreases by 5 per cent, or more of the maximum marks allotted to the concerned paper.
Provided that in the case of a candidate for M.A./M.Sc. examination the result of re-evaluation will also be changed if the aggregate comes to 55% or more even if on re-evaluation the score does not increase by 5% of the maximum marks allotted to the concerned paper.
Provided further that the candidates placed on the 'Merit List' are treated at par with other candidates in the matter of re-evaluation of answer-books i.e. their application forms for re-evaluation, if desired, must reach the University Office, under registered cover, within the specified time limit as indicated in No. 2 (a & b) above for the purpose.
10. Subject to provision under R.9.2 the score on re-evaluation shall supersede theoriginal score.'
5. The chapter of re-evaluation of answer-books contains fifteen rules. In orderto place proper interpretation on R. 9.2, it is necessary to go through all the rules to find out the scheme of re-evaluation. R. 1 provides re-evaluation in case of annual, supplementary, bi-annual and Semester examinations conducted by the University. Certain exceptions are provided which need not be noticed. An application for re-evaluation on prescribed form along with prescribed fee is to reach the University within twenty-one days from the declaration of the result of the particular examination, as provided under R. 2 A. R. 12 provides that if as a result of re-evaluation, a candidate passes at the examination, he or she shall be eligible to seek admission to the next higher class within ten days of the communication of re-evaluation of result. Similarly, if the candidate is eligible for supplementary examination, he or she would be permitted to appear in the usual supplementary examination. According to. R. 14, the result of re-evaluation, whether favourable or unfavourable, will be binding on the candidate who applies for re-evaluation.
6. A perusal of the aforesaid rules contained in the chapter of re-evaluation of answer-books makes it abundantly clear that they pertained to a particular examination. That may be Semester Examination as in the case of LL.B. Course. The admission to the higher class as well as to reappear in the next examination is to depend upon the declaration of the result of the re-evaluation of paper or papers in a particular examination. R. 9.2, as reproduced above, in the light of other rules as referred to above, relates to a particular examination and is to be interpreted in that light. As per this rule, the result on re-evaluation is only changed if the character of the result is changed and the character has been defined as 'Fail' to 'Pass' or 'Compartment', 'Compartment' to pass or vice versa, change in division in aggregate or position in the University Merit List or where, on re-evaluation the score increases/decreases by 5 per cent or more of the maximum marks allotted to the concerned, paper. Taking into consideration the facts of the case in hand, it is to be seen whether the case of the petitioner is covered by the definition of changed character, change in position in the UniversityMerit List. It is not disputed that University Merit List with respect to Fifth Semester of LL.B. Course is not prepared. Rather, for passing LL.B. (Professional) Course, a candidate who after qualifying as a regular candidate in twenty papers of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Semesters qualifies in any ten papers of the Fifith and Sixth Semesters shall be awarded LL.B. degree, as provided under R. 10. This would show that the result of Fifth and Sixth Semesters is to be seen in order to find out if a candidate has passed ten papers of these two semesters and then he would be awarded LL.B. degree. It is only in the final result of LL.B. Sixth Semester that University prepares merit list. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that change in position in the University Merit List, as provided under R. 9.2, in case of the petitioner should be so read to give benefit of marks obtained on re-evaluation in Fifth Semester to be given in the Sixth Semester. I am afraid this contention cannot be accepted. As already noticed above, the result of re-evaluation of Fifth Semester Examination is not to await the final result of Sixth Examination. Rather it is on the basis of the result of the Fifth Semester that admission and passing of the Sixth Semester Examination is based. As the practice, is, a candidate is required to pass in five papers in Fifth Semester and five papers in Sixth Semester and the result of ten papers is ultimately projected in the Sixth Semester Result Card. This can further be elucidated by giving following example :
7. A candidate appearing in Fifth Semester may pass in four papers and is required to reappear in fifth paper. He may be allowed provisional admission in the Sixth Semester and take up two examinations, one paper of the Fifth Semester wherein he is to reappear and the remaining five papers of the Sixth Semester. In that case, his result of Sixth Semester would await the result of the Fifth Semester Examintion. If in any case he fails to clear the fifth paper of Fifth Semester, obviously his result of Sixth Semester Examination cannot be declared successful as in that case he will not be passing ten papers for being awarded LL.B. degree. Since theUniversity was expected to declare the result of Fifth Semester after re-evaluation of one of the papers, the said result was not required to be delayed till result of Sixth Semester is declared. That being the position, the change of the result on re-evaluation of one or more papers will affect the particular examination and if for (he said examination, University is not to prepare any Merit List, no benefit can be derived by the candidate by securing increase of less than 5 percent marks. As is in the present case as other clauses are not attracted as the petitioner has already passed the papers including the one in which re-evaluation was asked for, three marks could have been given to him only if it had affected change in the division but that is not the case in hand.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. 3 Jasdeep Singh also applied for re-evaluation of one of the papers and he secured five marks more (i.e. 5 per cent). He was given credit of these marks and ultimately adding the result of Fifth Semester to the result of Sixth Semester, he was declared a topper by getting 697 marks whereas the petitioner was denied the benefit of re-evaluation. This contention again cannot be accepted as far as Jasdeep Singh respondent is concerned. On re-evaluation, his score increased by five per cent or more of the maximum marks allowed to the concerned paper and in view of R. 9,2, the credit could be given to him even if the same was not changing his position in the University Merit List or division or aggregate. The case of Jasdeep Singh, therefore, cannot be equated with that of the petitioner. Furthermore; if may be noticed that University Merit List is prepared on the result of annual examination only and that too both the Semesters as whole at a first attempt and at one and the same sitting as provided under Rr. (i) and (ii) of the Punjab University Calendar, 1985 (Volume-III Edition) at page-511. This would further indicate that if a person had passed Fifth Semester in the Supplementary Examination and Sixth Semester in Annual Examination, he will not be entitled to get the medal securing a position in the Merit List. This would show that re-evaluation of a particularpaper is to be for the particular examination.
9. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
10. Petition dismissed.