Sujata Suryavanshi and Another Vs. University of Mumbai and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[a] constitution of india, 1950 - article 226 - interference with restrictions imposed by university while evaluating answer books.;rules & ordinances by a academic body like university are with a view to maintain academic standards and are left to such bodies. no interference with ordinance & there was nothing wrong. ;[b] constitution of india, 1950 - article 226 - writ of mandamus - students demands. ;no mandamus issued directing vice-chancellor to implement demands of students. - - there is further provision in case of a candidate who has passed in individual heads, but has failed only on the aggregate, in which case he shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his answer books in any two theory papers of his choice. for the purpose of this clause, a candidate who has passed in individual heads, but has failed only on the aggregate, shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his answer book in only one theory paper of his choice. 2. apart from the fact that the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has not been, in any way, in a position to show us what is wrong with this ordinance meaning thereby how it is unconstitutional or against any fundamental rights, we are of the clear opinion that all such rules and ordinances by the academic body like the university are with view to maintaining minimum academic standards and it is settled law, in our opinion, that such matters are best left to autonomous body like the university. however, it may be interesting to see the memorandum of demands by the students made to the vice chancellor. (2) the ordinance 237-a do not allow revaluation in all subjects and restrict to only two subject which prohibits students to get justice and their fate is at the mercy of examiner which purely constitutional invalid and unjustified and hence to amend the said statute allowing the students to apply for revaluation in all subject irrespective of the marks obtained in those subjects in which students are failed.1. this petition is filed by six students against the university of mumbai and others seeking certain reliefs. prayer (a) is to the effect that the provisions of ordinance no. 237-a be declared as unconstitutional, ultra vires and in violation offundamental rights and void ab initio. ordinance no. 237-a is incorrectly mentioned everywhere in the petition as ordinance no. 273-a. we have gone through the ordinance. the ordinance puts, certain restrictions on the right of revaluation of answer books. it states that a candidate who appears in all the subjects of a university examination at one and the same sitting and in not more than two heads of passing of prescribed for theory papers at the said examination shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his answer book in the said heads of passing provided he has secured at least 50 per cent of the marks required for passing in each of those heads or minimum 'c' grade in cases where grades are assigned to theory papers. there is further provision in case of a candidate who has passed in individual heads, but has failed only on the aggregate, in which case he shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his answer books in any two theory papers of his choice. clause 2 makes a provision where a candidate who appears for an examination in any theory paper or papers and fails in only one head of passing prescribed for theory papers at the said examination shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his answer books in the said head of passing provided he has secured at least 50 per cent of the marks required for passing in that head or minimum 'c' grade in cases where grades are assigned to theory papers. for the purpose of this clause, a candidate who has passed in individual heads, but has failed only on the aggregate, shall be eligible to seek revaluation of his answer book in only one theory paper of his choice. 2. apart from the fact that the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has not been, in any way, in a position to show us what is wrong with this ordinance meaning thereby how it is unconstitutional or against any fundamental rights, we are of the clear opinion that all such rules and ordinances by the academic body like the university are with view to maintaining minimum academic standards and it is settled law, in our opinion, that such matters are best left to autonomous body like the university. we have found nothing wrong in the aforesaid ordinance and we do not find any merit in so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned. 3. prayer (b) states that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the university and other authorities to implement or act upon in furtherance or in pursuance of the memorandum of demands raised vide memorandum dated 4th october, 1997. we find it impossible to entertain any such prayer. however, it may be interesting to see the memorandum of demands by the students made to the vice chancellor. the signatories, who are students of the government law college, have demanded the follows:-' (1) allow blanked atkt, being the results are declared very late, nearly at the end of first term which puts the students into grave hardship and unfair. (2) the ordinance 237-a do not allow revaluation in all subjects and restrict to only two subject which prohibits students to get justice and their fate is at the mercy of examiner which purely constitutional invalid and unjustified and hence to amend the said statute allowing the students to apply for revaluation in all subject irrespective of the marks obtained in those subjects in which students are failed. (3) continue october batch, so that the students year is not wasted and they can continue their studies in october batch. (4) declare the results in time before the terms could stand to avoid inconvenience i.e. to save a loss of complete term and enable to complete the entire syllabus on time. (5) hold examinations on time to enable the students to prepare for examination on time and to contribute for the development of legal system and to become law abiding citizens of india.' we have heard mr. rodrigues for the university. mr. rodrigues pointed out innumerable difficulties faced by the university for keeping the examination schedule and the schedule of declaration of results. undoubtedly, the university must make every effort to hold examinations on time and keep the schedule so as to avoid loss of terms or any prejudice to the students. but we cannot be oblivious to several difficulties, faced by the university. therefore, the demands may be considered by the vice-chancellor to whom, they are addressed. however, we find it impossible to entertain the petition for grant of writ of mandamus against the university in the nature sought. 4. in the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the petition and the petition is dismissed in limine. 5. petition dismissed.