Makka Raja Sekhar and Others Vs. Registrar, Andhra University, Waltair, Visakhapatham - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(i) constitution - examination rules - meddling took place in registrar of university during conduct of examination - candidate declared failed though passed in examination - mental pain suffered by petitioner - held, university liable to compensate petitioner by paying rs 5,000/-. (ii) estoppel - petitioner declared passed - failed in records - held, petitioner not entitled for benefit of estoppel. - specific relief act, 1963 [c.a. no. 47/1963]. sections 31 & 34: [bilal nazki, v.v.s. rao & g. chandraiah, jj] [per court] cancellation of registered sale deed inherent power of registering authority - fraudulent transfer of property sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee held, it is void. true owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from court. registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render sections 31 and 34 of specific relief act, otiose. -- transfer of property act,1882[c.a. no. 4/1882]. sections 53 & 126: [per court] cancellation of registered sale deed inherent power of registering authority - fraudulent transfer of property sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee held, it is void. true owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from court. registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render sections 31 and 34 of specific relief act, otiose. - initially, in the results declared, first petitioner was declared to have passed and secured 53% in the 'subject' and failed in taxation subject by securing only 16% marks. after revaluation, the university issued a revised marks memorandum to the 1st petitioner stating that he failed in the 'subject' as he got only 22% marks as against 53% originally obtained by him and that he passed taxation subject by getting 47% marks as against 16% marks got by him earlier. similarly, petitioners 2 and 3 are declared to have passed in the 'subject' initially, but subsequently both of them are also declared to have failed in the 'subject' saying that they secured only 19% and 22% of marks respectively in the 'subject'.2. the affidavit sworn to be the first petitioner in this writ petition is silent about the exact marks secured by petitioners 2 and 3 in the first instance, in the 'subject'.it is alleged by the petitioners that the university authorities orally informed them that some bungling took place in the office of registrar of university relating to de-coding the answer scripts and some students who took the examination in the 'subject' from sir crr law college, eluru, have been wrongly declared as 'passed' the examination in the 'subject' in the first instance, even-though they failed inthe 'subject'.the university authorities, the petitioners state, have informed the petitioners that a re-examination in the 'subject' will be conducted immedi according to the petitioners, they have pointed out to the university authorities that exactly one half of the students (similarly placed as that of the petitioners) who took the examination in the 'subject' from sir crr law college cannot be declared to have failed in the 'subject' in serial order when the other half of the students with the same serial order are declared to have passed in the 'subject'.they pointed out that three students who appeared for the examination in the 'subject' with roll nos. though the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is prolix with redundant averments, in essence, the action of the andhra university in retrieving the marks memoranda from the petitioners,'in which the university stated that they have passed in the 'subject',originally issued to the petitioners, and subsequently declaring them as failed in the said 'subject',without giving any notice, is being assailed in this writ petition. because of the above mistake, some of the students who have passed in the 'subject' were declared as failed and some other students who have failed in the 'subject' were declared as passed. 9. the second contention of petitioners, counsel is that when once the students are declared to have been passed in the examination by the university, the university has no power to withhold issuance of provisional certificates to the students and recall the marks memoranda, and the university is estopped from going back to declare that the candidates have failed in the examination. in vanajakshi's case (supra) the facts, which are almost identical to that of the case on hand, arc that the petitioner therein failed in the supplementary examination held for chemistry-i paper of first year b. repelling the contention of the petitioner-therein, based on the 'doctrine of estoppel',that the university is estopped from declaring her as 'failed' in the subject having once declared her as 'passed',the learned judge said: there may be a case in which a person might have been declared as failed wrongly due to certain typographical mistakes and in such a case it is always open for the university to correct its result suo moto or when such a mistake is brought to its notice and declare the student as passed. the instant case is reverse case in which the result of the petitioner was declared as passed but on the basis of the results found in the record the petitioner infact has failed and the same was due to the typographical mistake. 20. the andhra university is a very reputed university in india since several decades with high degree of excellence in the field of education, and it has a rich and varied experience in conducting various examinations.order1. the three writ petitioners, makka rajasekhar (roll no.95129), narasimha (roll no.95138) and chandu lakshmi srinivas (roll no.95120), appeared for the final year examinations of five year law course, through sir c.r. reddy law college, eluru, along with other students in april 1999 conducted by the andhra university-respondent herein. along with other subjects, the petitioners appeared for the examination in one of the compulsory subjects, viz., 'principles of legislation, legislative drafting and interpretation ofstatutes' (for short 'the subject'). all of them are declared to have passed the said examination in the results announced by the university. initially, in the results declared, first petitioner was declared to have passed and secured 53% in the 'subject' and failed in taxation subject by securing only 16% marks. the university seems to have sent a communication to sir crr law college, eluru, bearing no-b.iv (5) misc./ 2000, dated 13-3-2000, to collect the marks memoranda already issued . to some candidates, including the first petitioner, in respect of examinations held in april, 1999 and send them to the university for verification. the college collected the marks memoranda and transmitted to the university. meanwhile, first petitioner applied for revaluation of taxation paper. after revaluation, the university issued a revised marks memorandum to the 1st petitioner stating that he failed in the 'subject' as he got only 22% marks as against 53% originally obtained by him and that he passed taxation subject by getting 47% marks as against 16% marks got by him earlier. similarly, petitioners 2 and 3 are declared to have passed in the 'subject' initially, but subsequently both of them are also declared to have failed in the 'subject' saying that they secured only 19% and 22% of marks respectively in the 'subject'.2. the affidavit sworn to be the first petitioner in this writ petition is silent about the exact marks secured by petitioners 2 and 3 in the first instance, in the 'subject'. it is alleged by the petitioners that the university authorities orally informed them that some bungling took place in the office of registrar of university relating to de-coding the answer scripts and some students who took the examination in the 'subject' from sir crr law college, eluru, have been wrongly declared as 'passed' the examination in the 'subject' in the first instance, even-though they failed inthe 'subject'. the university authorities, the petitioners state, have informed the petitioners that a re-examination in the 'subject' will be conducted immediately, waiving the fee, and results thereof will be announced without delay if the petitioners and other similarly placed students submit a joint representation to the university in that behalf. according to the petitioners, they have pointed out to the university authorities that exactly one half of the students (similarly placed as that of the petitioners) who took the examination in the 'subject' from sir crr law college cannot be declared to have failed in the 'subject' in serial order when the other half of the students with the same serial order are declared to have passed in the 'subject'. they pointed out that three students who appeared for the examination in the 'subject' with roll nos.95102, 95104 and 95121 are declared to have passed in the 'subject' and have already enrolled themselves as advocates. though the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is prolix with redundant averments, in essence, the action of the andhra university in retrieving the marks memoranda from the petitioners,' in which the university stated that they have passed in the 'subject', originally issued to the petitioners, and subsequently declaring them as failed in the said 'subject', without giving any notice, is being assailed in this writ petition.3. the university filed its counter, stating inter aha, that after the valuation of the 'subject', while sending the corrected marks forms which contain the marks of the candidates to the confidential cell from the spot center, two corrected marks sheets of the 'subject' ('principles of legislation, legislative drafting and interpretation of statutes') were wrongly tagged to the bunch of corrected marks forms of criminal procedure code, probably because of the similarity of the code numbers of both the subjects except forone digit. the first three digits begin with 325 and 326 for the two subjects, while in both the subjects the last three digits are the same, i.e., 721 to 750. this mistake committed was undetected, it is stated in the counter-affidavit, and the marks relating to code nos.326721 to 326750 (30 candidates) of criminal procedure code subject have been posted inadvertently for code nos.325721 to 325750 (30 candidates) of the 'subject' ('principles of legislation, legislative drafting and interpretation of statutes') vice-versa and the results have been announced accordingly. it is stated that this discrepancy has been noticed when some of the students applied for revaluation of their answer scripts in criminal procedure code subject, and noticing the wide variation between the original marks and the revaluation marks of these students, the issue has been probed thoroughly and the authorities have verified all the answer scripts and during that verifications it was found that the mistake has occurred because the corrected marks forms of one subject have been wrongly tagged on to the corrected marks forms of another subject at the spot valuation centers and sent to the confidential cell. it is stated that after discovering this mistake, the university sent a letter to the college to collect the marks sheet of the petitioners and others and transmit the same to the university so as to correct the marks memoranda and to issue fresh marks memoranda. the marks noted in the marks memoranda initially issued to the petitioners and others against the 'subject' (principles of legislation, legislative drafting and interpretation of statutes') actually relate to the subject 'criminal procedure code' secured by some other candidates, but not by the petitioners and the rest of the 30 candidates. adverting to the allegation of the petitioners that some of the candidates, similarly placed as that of the petitioners, are declared to have passed in the 'subject', it is stated in the counter that four candidates with rollnos.95102, 95104, 95106 and 95121 have obtained their provisional certificates. however, it is stated that candidates with roll numbers 95102 and 95121 have originally passed their examination in the 'subject'. with regard to candidates having roll nos.95104 and 95106, it is stated that did not complete their examination in the 'subject' and their marks memoranda and provisional certificates are being withdrawn and their results will be declared afresh based on the marks originally obtained by them. the university contended that the marks memoranda and provisional certificates are purely 'provisional' and the university has got every right/power to withdraw/recall the same from the candidates to whom they are issued, whenever it finds any discrepancy or mistakes therein.4. on 11-8-2000, when this writ petition came up for hearing, on perusing record, and taking cognizance of the fact that some of the answers written by the petitioners were not awarded with any marks, this court, in the interests, of justice and equity and in the peculiar fact-situation of this case, passed a speaking order directing re-valuation of the three answer scripts of the petitioners by the osmania university. accordingly, the re-valuation was carried out by the osmania university authorities. in the re-valuation, the first petitioner secured 36%, the 2nd petitioner 38% and the third petitioner 23% of marks in the 'subject', (as against the marks of 22%, 19% and 22% secured by them as per the revised marks memoranda issued by andhra university).5. subsequently, the andhra university filed an additional counter-affidavit, sworn to by its registrar on 3-9-2000. it is stated therein that after announcement of result, some of the candidates applied for revaluation and the answer scripts of those students were sent for re-valuation on4-11-1999. during verification of scripts after revaluation and the c.m. forms, it is noticed that the corrected marks forms of the 'subject' ('principles of legislation, legislation drafting and interpretation statutes') were wrongly tagged on to the bunch of corrected marks forms of criminal procedure code of some other college. then the university had decided to verify all the scripts, i.e., about 5000 scripts pertaining to the law colleges and also the scripts of the other departments numbering about six lakhs. after verification, the university found no other discrepancies. because of the above mistake, some of the students who have passed in the 'subject' were declared as failed and some other students who have failed in the 'subject' were declared as passed. to rectify that mistake, the university recalled the marks memoranda. at that stage the petitioners and other students have approached the university and they were informed about the situation and also the decision of the university. the students were also informed that the university is ready to conduct examination in the 'subject', specially to those students and steps will be taken to announce the results immediately. it is stated that, the students were also informed that their answer scripts would be sent for re-valuation, if they so desire. it is stated that as per the regulation a candidate shall be declared to have passed in a subject if he obtains not less that 40% of marks in that subject, and the university has got all the power to rectify the mistake at any time and there is no negligence on the part of the university.6. sri nooty ramamohan rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on clause (a) of regulation no.6 of the regulations and syllabus relating to 5 year b.l. decree course, 1992 (draft regulations as adopted by the board of studies in law on 1-6-1983), contended that petitioners 1 and 2, who got more than 30% of marks inthe 'subject' after revaluation done by the osmania university, must be declared to have passed in the 'subject'. regulation 6(a) of the said 1992 regulation reads thus:'6(a) a candidate shall be declared to have passed in a subject if he has obtained not less than 40% of the marks in aggregate with the paper minimum for every subject as 30 marks'.7. in opposition to the above submission, the learned standing counsel for andhra university produced the latest regulations of 1994, viz., regulations and syllabus relating to 5 year b.l. degree course (draft regulations as adopted by the board of studies in law on 1-6-1983), and, relying on the following regulation 6(a)a. 'a candidate shall be declared to have passed in a subject if he has obtained not less than 40% of the marks in that subject'-contended that none of the petitioners can be declared to have passed in the 'subject; inasmuch as one of them got even the minimum pass mark of 40% in the subject'.8. it is to be noted that the 1992 regulations, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, came into force with effect from the academic year, 1998-89, whereas the 1994 regulations relied on by the learned standing counsel of the andhra university came into force with effect from the academic year, 1994-95. therefore, the 1992 regulations cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners, in view of the 1994 regulations, which are the latest regulations and operating the filed. the petitioners are governed by the 1994 regulations only, and not by the 1992 regulations. hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners 1 and 2 must be declaredto have passed in the 'subject' has no legs to stand and the same is hereby rejected.9. the second contention of petitioners, counsel is that when once the students are declared to have been passed in the examination by the university, the university has no power to withhold issuance of provisional certificates to the students and recall the marks memoranda, and the university is estopped from going back to declare that the candidates have failed in the examination.10. countering the above contention, the learned standing counsel for andhra university, relying on the decision of this court, n. vanajakshi (miss) v. principal, university college for women, : 1999(3)ald617 , submitted that the university is not estopped from correcting the typographical/ inadvertent mistakes. he also contended that what all the university did in this case is only to correct the mistake that had crept in inadvertently and the decision of the university cannot be faulted on any ground.11. it is true, there cannot be any estoppel against a statute. in vanajakshi's case (supra) the facts, which are almost identical to that of the case on hand, arc that the petitioner therein failed in the supplementary examination held for chemistry-i paper of first year b.sc course. but, in the marks memorandum issued to her, it was shown that she had passed the subject, she was permitted to appear in the subsequent examinations and she completed all the four years. at the time of declaration of the results in the fourth year b.sc course, the above said mistake was noticed and her result was withheld. repelling the contention of the petitioner-therein, based on the 'doctrine of estoppel', that the university is estopped from declaring her as 'failed' in the subject having once declared her as 'passed', the learned judge said:'it is an established principle of law that there cannot be an estoppel against the statute. the statute requires that the students shall secure minimum percentage of marks. if there is any clerical or typographical mistake, such a mistake comes in the way of such statutory requirement. there may be a case in which a person might have been declared as failed wrongly due to certain typographical mistakes and in such a case it is always open for the university to correct its result suo moto or when such a mistake is brought to its notice and declare the student as passed. the instant case is reverse case in which the result of the petitioner was declared as passed but on the basis of the results found in the record the petitioner infact has failed and the same was due to the typographical mistake. in these circumstances, i am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of doctrine of estoppel'.from the above proposition of law, it is clear that the petitioners' contention based on the doctrine of estoppel is without merit, and the same is hereby rejected.12. the learned counsel for thepetitioners fairly conceded that the petitioners are not entitled to seek any declaration that they have passed the examination in the 'subject' as none of them got the minimum of 40% of marks, even after conducting revaluation of papers by the osmania university as directed by this court.13. the next contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the students with roll nos.95102, 95104, 95106 and 95121, who are similarly placed as that of the petitioners herein, are declared as passed in the 'subject' and three of such candidates (with roll nos.95102, 95104 and 95121) also got themselves enrolled as advocatesand, therefore, the university has not treated the petitioners herein and the abovesaid candidates equally, and thereby the petitioners are discriminated against by the university.14. the learned standing counsel for the andhra university submitted that out of the above four candidates, candidates with roll nos.95102 and 95121 have originally passed the 'subject' and there is no discrepancy, and the candidates with roll nos.95104 and 95106 have not completed some examinations, and the marks memoranda and provisional certificates issued to these two candidates are also being withdrawn by the university.15. from the above aspects, it is clear that the university has not placed any the other candidates, pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on a higher pedestal and the university did not treat the petitioners and the other candidates differently and there is no discrimination meted out to the pensioners.16. to a specific query from this court, during the course of hearing, as to what steps the university has taken for fixing responsibility for the mistake occurred in the university in this case, the learned standing counsel produced before this court a communication dated 29-7-2000 received by him from the registrar of andhra university wherein it is stated that, as per the directions issued by the vice chancellor on 10-3-2000, the principal of dr. b.r. ambedkar law college, visakhapatnam has been asked to identify the persons responsible for the lapse and the teacher associates of the confidential cell involved in the examination processing work are identified and they arc advised to be more careful in future.17. apart from the above, the standing counsel for the andhra university submitted that it is not possible to fix upresponsibility on any person because there are number of employees working in the university, the mistake occurred in this case is a bona fide one and the university will take remedial measures to avoid recurrence of the mistakes of this sort in future. relying on memo no.pa/r/2000, dated 18-3-2000 of the andhra university, he submits that the university has cancelled the marks statements/provisional certificates of some students of sir crr law college, eluru and nbm law college, visakhapatnam, as some mistakes have crept in posting the marks, and that the university is willing to conduct re-examination, waiving payment of fee, and to declare the results quickly.18. from the material on record, it is clear that certain mistakes have crept in while preparing the marks statements. the petitioners are only three candidates among several similarly placed candidates of sir crr law college, eluru and nbm law college, visakhpatnam, and they cannot claim any exception. none of the petitioners could get the minimum pass mark of 40% even during revaluation conducted by osmania university as ordered by this court. hence, they are not entitled to be declared as passed in the 'subject' unless they appear for the examination in the 'subject' again and get through the same.19. then comes the question as to what relief the petitioners are entitled to as already held by me, undoubtedly, the petitioners cannot be declared as passed in the 'subject', since none of them could secure even the minimum pass mark of 40% in the 'subject'. but, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have suffered any amount of mental agony due to the careless action of the university and the approach of the university is callous. the university did not issue any show-cause notice to the petitioners, except communicating with the college, before canceling the marksmemoranda and did not conduct any enquiry into the whole issue and fix up responsibility.20. the andhra university is a very reputed university in india since several decades with high degree of excellence in the field of education, and it has a rich and varied experience in conducting various examinations. the attitude of the university in this case is startling. so far nothing is done to probe the matter for fix up responsibility. the answer given by the standing counsel in this regard is vague and unsatisfactory. the petitioners have lost their valuable time of one year and they are oscillating in uncertainty since a long time.21. the manner in which the evaluation of answer scripts of the petitioners carried out by andhra university is yet another disturbing feature in this case. some of the answers given by the petitioners are not even evaluated and awarded any marks by the examiners. a perusal of the answer scripts, prima facie, demonstrates the casual, callous and irresponsible attitude on the part of the examiners in evaluating the answer scripts. the examiners concerned seem to have forgotten and unconscious of the fact that the marks awarded by them will decide the fate of the students concerned. if at all the answer given by the candidate to a particular question is wrong, the least expected of the examiner is to award 'zero'. the variation of marks between the initial valuation by andhra university and the subsequent revaluation by osmania university is not a minimal or ignorable one. the petitioners have been awarded the marks of 22%, 19% and 22% respectively by the andhra university. in the revaluation conducted by osmania university, at the instance of this court, they got the marks of 36%, 38% and 23% marks respectively. hence the variation is on the high side. how could this type of variation, which is almost 100% say, in the case of secondpetitioner, occur during evaluation of answer scripts at the hands of academicians? the fate of the students shall not be left to the whimsical tendencies of the examiners.22. time and again this court and the apex court cautioned the universities and educational institutions to be vigilant and cautious in academic matters especially in curbing irregularities and malpractices in conducting examinations. if the university itself indulges in this sort of irregularities during evaluation by academicians and university authorities, and if they are left unchecked, what will be the fate of the students who have not approached the court?23. however, exercising utmost restraint, i refrain from saying anything more, befitting with the self-imposed limitations and parameters of judicial review by the court under article 226 of the constitution of india.24. the mental agony and suffering of the petitioners cannot adequately be compensated in terms of money. the case on hand is a typical example of falling standards of education and the careless attitude of the university authorities. i hope and trust that the university will wake up from the deep slumber atleast by now, take a pragmatic view of the matter and take stern action against the erring persons, whatever position they may occupy, identifying them after conducting a detailed enquiry. the role, if any, of all persons right from controller of examinations down to the lower division clerk concerned shall be thoroughly inquired into, responsibility fixed on the concerned and suitable and stern/deterrent action should be take against such persons, so as to prevent recurrence of the mistakes of this sort in future.25. taking into consideration the peculiar fact-situation obtaining in thiscase, the menial agony and suffering the petitioners had experienced, i direct the university to pay rs.5,000/- each (rupees five thousands each) as compensation to the petitioners. the sum of rs.500/-, paid by the petitioners to osmania university of revaluation, shall also be paid back to the petitioners by the andhra university.26. subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the andhra university is directed to pay a sum of rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand only) to the petitioners as exemplary costs in this writ petition.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The three writ petitioners, Makka Rajasekhar (Roll No.95129), Narasimha (Roll No.95138) and Chandu Lakshmi Srinivas (Roll No.95120), appeared for the final year examinations of Five Year Law Course, through Sir C.R. Reddy Law College, Eluru, along with other students in April 1999 conducted by the Andhra University-respondent herein. Along with other subjects, the petitioners appeared for the examination in one of the compulsory subjects, viz., 'Principles of Legislation, Legislative Drafting and Interpretation ofStatutes' (for short 'the subject'). All of them are declared to have passed the said examination in the results announced by the University. Initially, in the results declared, first petitioner was declared to have passed and secured 53% in the 'subject' and failed in Taxation subject by securing only 16% marks. The University seems to have sent a communication to Sir CRR Law College, Eluru, bearing No-B.IV (5) Misc./ 2000, dated 13-3-2000, to collect the marks memoranda already issued . to some candidates, including the first petitioner, in respect of examinations held in April, 1999 and send them to the University for verification. The College collected the marks memoranda and transmitted to the University. Meanwhile, first petitioner applied for revaluation of Taxation paper. After revaluation, the University issued a revised marks memorandum to the 1st petitioner stating that he failed in the 'subject' as he got only 22% marks as against 53% originally obtained by him and that he passed Taxation subject by getting 47% marks as against 16% marks got by him earlier. Similarly, petitioners 2 and 3 are declared to have passed in the 'subject' initially, but subsequently both of them are also declared to have failed in the 'subject' saying that they secured only 19% and 22% of marks respectively in the 'subject'.

2. The affidavit sworn to be the first petitioner in this writ petition is silent about the exact marks secured by petitioners 2 and 3 in the first instance, in the 'subject'. It is alleged by the petitioners that the University authorities orally informed them that some bungling took place in the office of Registrar of University relating to de-coding the answer scripts and some students who took the examination in the 'subject' from Sir CRR Law College, Eluru, have been wrongly declared as 'passed' the examination in the 'subject' in the first instance, even-though they failed inthe 'subject'. The University authorities, the petitioners state, have informed the petitioners that a re-examination in the 'subject' will be conducted immediately, waiving the fee, and results thereof will be announced without delay if the petitioners and other similarly placed students submit a joint representation to the University in that behalf. According to the petitioners, they have pointed out to the University authorities that exactly one half of the students (similarly placed as that of the petitioners) who took the examination in the 'subject' from Sir CRR Law College cannot be declared to have failed in the 'subject' in serial order when the other half of the students with the same serial order are declared to have passed in the 'subject'. They pointed out that three students who appeared for the examination in the 'subject' with Roll Nos.95102, 95104 and 95121 are declared to have passed in the 'subject' and have already enrolled themselves as advocates. Though the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is prolix with redundant averments, in essence, the action of the Andhra University in retrieving the marks memoranda from the petitioners,' in which the University stated that they have passed in the 'subject', originally issued to the petitioners, and subsequently declaring them as failed in the said 'subject', without giving any notice, is being assailed in this writ petition.

3. The University filed its counter, stating inter aha, that after the valuation of the 'subject', while sending the corrected marks forms which contain the marks of the candidates to the Confidential Cell from the Spot Center, two corrected marks sheets of the 'subject' ('Principles of Legislation, Legislative Drafting and Interpretation of Statutes') were wrongly tagged to the bunch of corrected marks forms of Criminal Procedure Code, probably because of the similarity of the Code Numbers of both the subjects except forone digit. The first three digits begin with 325 and 326 for the two subjects, while in both the subjects the last three digits are the same, i.e., 721 to 750. This mistake committed was undetected, it is stated in the counter-affidavit, and the marks relating to Code Nos.326721 to 326750 (30 candidates) of Criminal Procedure Code subject have been posted inadvertently for Code Nos.325721 to 325750 (30 candidates) of the 'subject' ('Principles of Legislation, Legislative Drafting and Interpretation of Statutes') vice-versa and the results have been announced accordingly. It is stated that this discrepancy has been noticed when some of the students applied for revaluation of their answer scripts in Criminal Procedure Code subject, and noticing the wide variation between the original marks and the revaluation marks of these students, the issue has been probed thoroughly and the authorities have verified all the answer scripts and during that verifications it was found that the mistake has occurred because the corrected marks forms of one subject have been wrongly tagged on to the corrected marks forms of another subject at the spot valuation centers and sent to the Confidential Cell. It is stated that after discovering this mistake, the University sent a letter to the College to collect the marks sheet of the petitioners and others and transmit the same to the University so as to correct the marks memoranda and to issue fresh marks memoranda. The marks noted in the marks memoranda initially issued to the petitioners and others against the 'subject' (Principles of Legislation, Legislative Drafting and Interpretation of Statutes') actually relate to the subject 'Criminal Procedure Code' secured by some other candidates, but not by the petitioners and the rest of the 30 candidates. Adverting to the allegation of the petitioners that some of the candidates, similarly placed as that of the petitioners, are declared to have passed in the 'subject', it is stated in the counter that four candidates with RollNos.95102, 95104, 95106 and 95121 have obtained their provisional certificates. However, it is stated that candidates with Roll Numbers 95102 and 95121 have originally passed their examination in the 'subject'. With regard to candidates having Roll Nos.95104 and 95106, it is stated that did not complete their examination in the 'subject' and their marks memoranda and provisional certificates are being withdrawn and their results will be declared afresh based on the marks originally obtained by them. The University contended that the marks memoranda and provisional certificates are purely 'provisional' and the University has got every right/power to withdraw/recall the same from the candidates to whom they are issued, whenever it finds any discrepancy or mistakes therein.

4. On 11-8-2000, when this writ petition came up for hearing, on perusing record, and taking cognizance of the fact that some of the answers written by the petitioners were not awarded with any marks, this Court, in the interests, of justice and equity and in the peculiar fact-situation of this case, passed a speaking order directing re-valuation of the three answer scripts of the petitioners by the Osmania University. Accordingly, the re-valuation was carried out by the Osmania University authorities. In the re-valuation, the first petitioner secured 36%, the 2nd petitioner 38% and the third petitioner 23% of marks in the 'subject', (as against the marks of 22%, 19% and 22% secured by them as per the revised marks memoranda issued by Andhra University).

5. Subsequently, the Andhra University filed an additional counter-affidavit, sworn to by its Registrar on 3-9-2000. It is stated therein that after announcement of result, some of the candidates applied for revaluation and the answer scripts of those students were sent for re-valuation on4-11-1999. During verification of scripts after revaluation and the C.M. forms, it is noticed that the corrected marks forms of the 'subject' ('Principles of Legislation, Legislation Drafting and Interpretation Statutes') were wrongly tagged on to the Bunch of corrected marks forms of Criminal Procedure Code of some other College. Then the University had decided to verify all the scripts, i.e., about 5000 scripts pertaining to the Law Colleges and also the scripts of the other Departments numbering about six lakhs. After verification, the University found no other discrepancies. Because of the above mistake, some of the students who have passed in the 'subject' were declared as failed and some other students who have failed in the 'subject' were declared as passed. To rectify that mistake, the University recalled the marks memoranda. At that stage the petitioners and other students have approached the University and they were informed about the situation and also the decision of the University. The students were also informed that the University is ready to conduct examination in the 'subject', specially to those students and steps will be taken to announce the results immediately. It is stated that, the students were also informed that their answer scripts would be sent for re-valuation, if they so desire. It is stated that as per the regulation a candidate shall be declared to have passed in a subject if he obtains not less that 40% of marks in that subject, and the University has got all the power to rectify the mistake at any time and there is no negligence on the part of the University.

6. Sri Nooty Ramamohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, relying on clause (a) of Regulation No.6 of the Regulations and Syllabus relating to 5 Year B.L. Decree course, 1992 (Draft Regulations as adopted by the Board of Studies in Law on 1-6-1983), contended that petitioners 1 and 2, who got more than 30% of marks inthe 'subject' after revaluation done by the Osmania University, must be declared to have passed in the 'subject'. Regulation 6(a) of the said 1992 Regulation reads thus:

'6(a) A candidate shall be declared to have passed in a subject if he has obtained not less than 40% of the marks in aggregate with the Paper Minimum for every subject as 30 marks'.

7. In opposition to the above submission, the learned Standing Counsel for Andhra University produced the latest Regulations of 1994, viz., Regulations and Syllabus relating to 5 Year B.L. Degree Course (Draft Regulations as adopted by the Board of Studies in Law on 1-6-1983), and, relying on the following Regulation 6(a)

a. 'A candidate shall be declared to have passed in a subject if he has obtained not less than 40% of the marks in that subject'-

contended that none of the petitioners can be declared to have passed in the 'subject; inasmuch as one of them got even the minimum pass mark of 40% in the subject'.

8. It is to be noted that the 1992 Regulations, relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, came into force with effect from the academic year, 1998-89, whereas the 1994 Regulations relied on by the learned Standing Counsel of the Andhra University came into force with effect from the academic year, 1994-95. Therefore, the 1992 Regulations cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners, in view of the 1994 Regulations, which are the latest Regulations and operating the filed. The petitioners are governed by the 1994 Regulations only, and not by the 1992 Regulations. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioners 1 and 2 must be declaredto have passed in the 'subject' has no legs to stand and the same is hereby rejected.

9. The second contention of petitioners, Counsel is that when once the students are declared to have been passed in the examination by the University, the University has no power to withhold issuance of provisional certificates to the students and recall the marks memoranda, and the University is estopped from going back to declare that the candidates have failed in the examination.

10. Countering the above contention, the learned Standing Counsel for Andhra University, relying on the decision of this Court, N. Vanajakshi (Miss) v. Principal, University College for Women, : 1999(3)ALD617 , submitted that the University is not estopped from correcting the typographical/ inadvertent mistakes. He also contended that what all the University did in this case is only to correct the mistake that had crept in inadvertently and the decision of the University cannot be faulted on any ground.

11. It is true, there cannot be any estoppel against a Statute. In Vanajakshi's case (supra) the facts, which are almost identical to that of the case on hand, arc that the petitioner therein failed in the supplementary examination held for Chemistry-I paper of first year B.Sc course. But, in the marks memorandum issued to her, it was shown that she had passed the subject, She was permitted to appear in the subsequent examinations and she completed all the four years. At the time of declaration of the results in the fourth year B.Sc course, the above said mistake was noticed and her result was withheld. Repelling the contention of the petitioner-therein, based on the 'doctrine of estoppel', that the University is estopped from declaring her as 'failed' in the subject having once declared her as 'passed', the learned Judge said:

'It is an established principle of law that there cannot be an estoppel against the statute. The statute requires that the students shall secure minimum percentage of marks. If there is any clerical or typographical mistake, such a mistake comes in the way of such statutory requirement. There may be a case in which a person might have been declared as failed wrongly due to certain typographical mistakes and in such a case it is always open for the University to correct its result suo moto or when such a mistake is brought to its notice and declare the student as passed. The instant case is reverse case in which the result of the petitioner was declared as passed but on the basis of the results found in the record the petitioner infact has failed and the same was due to the typographical mistake. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of doctrine of estoppel'.

From the above proposition of law, it is clear that the petitioners' contention based on the doctrine of estoppel is without merit, and the same is hereby rejected.

12. The learned Counsel for thepetitioners fairly conceded that the petitioners are not entitled to seek any declaration that they have passed the examination in the 'subject' as none of them got the minimum of 40% of marks, even after conducting revaluation of papers by the Osmania University as directed by this Court.

13. The next contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the students with Roll Nos.95102, 95104, 95106 and 95121, who are similarly placed as that of the petitioners herein, are declared as passed in the 'subject' and three of such candidates (with Roll Nos.95102, 95104 and 95121) also got themselves enrolled as advocatesand, therefore, the University has not treated the petitioners herein and the abovesaid candidates equally, and thereby the petitioners are discriminated against by the University.

14. The learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra University submitted that out of the above four candidates, candidates with Roll Nos.95102 and 95121 have originally passed the 'subject' and there is no discrepancy, and the candidates with Roll Nos.95104 and 95106 have not completed some examinations, and the marks memoranda and provisional certificates issued to these two candidates are also being withdrawn by the University.

15. From the above aspects, it is clear that the University has not placed any the other candidates, pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on a higher pedestal and the University did not treat the petitioners and the other candidates differently and there is no discrimination meted out to the pensioners.

16. To a specific query from this Court, during the course of hearing, as to what steps the University has taken for fixing responsibility for the mistake occurred in the University in this case, the learned Standing Counsel produced before this Court a communication dated 29-7-2000 received by him from the Registrar of Andhra University wherein it is stated that, as per the directions issued by the Vice Chancellor on 10-3-2000, the Principal of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Law College, Visakhapatnam has been asked to identify the persons responsible for the lapse and the Teacher Associates of the Confidential Cell involved in the examination processing work are identified and they arc advised to be more careful in future.

17. Apart from the above, the Standing Counsel for the Andhra University submitted that it is not possible to fix upresponsibility on any person because there are number of employees working in the University, the mistake occurred in this case is a bona fide one and the University will take remedial measures to avoid recurrence of the mistakes of this sort in future. Relying on Memo No.PA/R/2000, dated 18-3-2000 of the Andhra University, he submits that the University has cancelled the marks statements/provisional certificates of some students of Sir CRR Law College, Eluru and NBM Law College, Visakhapatnam, as some mistakes have crept in posting the marks, and that the University is willing to conduct re-examination, waiving payment of fee, and to declare the results quickly.

18. From the material on record, it is clear that certain mistakes have crept in while preparing the marks statements. The petitioners are only three candidates among several similarly placed candidates of Sir CRR Law College, Eluru and NBM Law College, Visakhpatnam, and they cannot claim any exception. None of the petitioners could get the minimum pass mark of 40% even during revaluation conducted by Osmania University as ordered by this Court. Hence, they are not entitled to be declared as passed in the 'subject' unless they appear for the examination in the 'subject' again and get through the same.

19. Then comes the question as to what relief the petitioners are entitled to As already held by me, undoubtedly, the petitioners cannot be declared as passed in the 'subject', since none of them could secure even the minimum pass mark of 40% in the 'subject'. But, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have suffered any amount of mental agony due to the careless action of the University and the approach of the University is callous. The University did not issue any show-cause notice to the petitioners, except communicating with the College, before canceling the marksmemoranda and did not conduct any enquiry into the whole issue and fix up responsibility.

20. The Andhra University is a very reputed University in India since several decades with high degree of excellence in the field of education, and it has a rich and varied experience in conducting various examinations. The attitude of the University in this case is startling. So far nothing is done to probe the matter for fix up responsibility. The answer given by the Standing Counsel in this regard is vague and unsatisfactory. The petitioners have lost their valuable time of one year and they are oscillating in uncertainty since a long time.

21. The manner in which the evaluation of answer scripts of the petitioners carried out by Andhra University is yet another disturbing feature in this case. Some of the answers given by the petitioners are not even evaluated and awarded any marks by the Examiners. A perusal of the answer scripts, prima facie, demonstrates the casual, callous and irresponsible attitude on the part of the Examiners in evaluating the answer scripts. The Examiners concerned seem to have forgotten and unconscious of the fact that the marks awarded by them will decide the fate of the students concerned. If at all the answer given by the candidate to a particular question is wrong, the least expected of the examiner is to award 'zero'. The variation of marks between the initial valuation by Andhra University and the subsequent revaluation by Osmania University is not a minimal or ignorable one. The petitioners have been awarded the marks of 22%, 19% and 22% respectively by the Andhra University. In the revaluation conducted by Osmania University, at the instance of this Court, they got the marks of 36%, 38% and 23% marks respectively. Hence the variation is on the high side. How could this type of variation, which is almost 100% say, in the case of secondpetitioner, occur during evaluation of answer scripts at the hands of academicians? The fate of the students shall not be left to the whimsical tendencies of the examiners.

22. Time and again this Court and the Apex Court cautioned the Universities and educational institutions to be vigilant and cautious in academic matters especially in curbing irregularities and malpractices in conducting examinations. If the University itself indulges in this sort of irregularities during evaluation by academicians and University authorities, and if they are left unchecked, what will be the fate of the students who have not approached the Court?

23. However, exercising utmost restraint, I refrain from saying anything more, befitting with the self-imposed limitations and parameters of judicial review by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

24. The mental agony and suffering of the petitioners cannot adequately be compensated in terms of money. The case on hand is a typical example of falling standards of education and the careless attitude of the University authorities. I hope and trust that the University will wake up from the deep slumber atleast by now, take a pragmatic view of the matter and take stern action against the erring persons, whatever position they may occupy, identifying them after conducting a detailed enquiry. The role, if any, of all persons right from Controller of Examinations down to the lower division clerk concerned shall be thoroughly inquired into, responsibility fixed on the concerned and suitable and stern/deterrent action should be take against such persons, so as to prevent recurrence of the mistakes of this sort in future.

25. Taking into consideration the peculiar fact-situation obtaining in thiscase, the menial agony and suffering the petitioners had experienced, I direct the University to pay Rs.5,000/- each (rupees five thousands each) as compensation to the petitioners. The sum of Rs.500/-, paid by the petitioners to Osmania University of revaluation, shall also be paid back to the petitioners by the Andhra University.

26. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Andhra University is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand only) to the petitioners as exemplary costs in this writ petition.