Raj Kumar Vs. Punjabi University, Patiala and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to clause (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 4. if the marks obtained after re-evaluation are not to be taken into consideration the very purpose of the re-evaluation is defeated.orderamarjeet chaudhary j.1. the petitioner along with respondent no. 4 appeared in master of physical education (one year course) examination in april, 1989, conducted by punjabi university at patiala. in the said examination respondent no. 4 obtained the highest marks-475 and stood first in the university the petitioner being dissatisfied with the result applied for re-evaluation of two papers i.e., support medicine and planning and supervision inphysical education. as a result of re-evaluation of the papers, the marks of the petitioner were increased in paper iii from 48 to 79 and in paper v from 47 to 52 as a consequence of which the total marks stood changed from 448 to 484, as is apparent from the result-cum-detailed marks card annexure p-2 petitioner thereafter moved representation dated 2-7-1990 to respondent no. 2 requesting that since the marks obtained by him were higher than that obtained by other candidates, therefore, he should be awarded university medal and his case be referred to the university for the said purpose. however, when no reply was received, the petitioner moved another representation dated 22-10-1990 for the said purpose. but respondent no, 3 did not agree and turned down the request of the petitioner to grant him university medal vide letter annexure p4. the petitioner through this petition under arts. 226/ 227 of the constitution of india is seeking direction to the respondent to award university medal to him, having secured the highest position in master of physical education.2. the stand of the respondents is that a candidate who gets highest position after the re-evaluation process will not be entitled to the medal/award of the university.3. it cannot be disputed that the petitioner on the basis of papers had secured 484 marks and his marks were higher than respondent no. 4. if the marks obtained after re-evaluation are not to be taken into consideration the very purpose of the re-evaluation is defeated. the apex court in jagat narain gupta v. the punjab university decided on 2-5-1989 (sic) civil appeal no. 91 of 1990 arising out of slp civil no. (s) 7674 of 1989, had observed that the cost of litigation will be several limes more than the cost of a gold medal and directed the university to grant gold medal. this court subsequently in cwp no. 5768 of 1990, decided on 13-9-1990 on somewhat identical facts had issued a direction to the university to award gold medal to the petitioner.4. in this view of the matter, the respondent-university is directed to awarduniversity medal to the petitioner without depriving respondent no. 4 of the university medal given to her.5. the writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.6. petition allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Amarjeet Chaudhary J.

1. The petitioner along with respondent No. 4 appeared in Master of Physical Education (one year Course) Examination in April, 1989, conducted by Punjabi University at Patiala. In the said examination respondent No. 4 obtained the highest marks-475 and stood first in the University The petitioner being dissatisfied with the result applied for re-evaluation of two papers i.e., Support Medicine and Planning and Supervision inPhysical Education. As a result of re-evaluation of the papers, the marks of the petitioner were increased in paper III from 48 to 79 and in paper V from 47 to 52 as a consequence of which the total marks stood changed from 448 to 484, as is apparent from the result-cum-detailed marks card Annexure P-2 petitioner thereafter moved representation dated 2-7-1990 to respondent No. 2 requesting that since the marks obtained by him were higher than that obtained by other candidates, therefore, he should be awarded University Medal and his case be referred to the University for the said purpose. However, when no reply was received, the petitioner moved another representation dated 22-10-1990 for the said purpose. But respondent No, 3 did not agree and turned down the request of the petitioner to grant him University Medal vide letter Annexure P4. The petitioner through this petition under Arts. 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to the respondent to award University Medal to him, having secured the highest position in Master of Physical Education.

2. The stand of the respondents is that a candidate who gets highest position after the re-evaluation process will not be entitled to the Medal/Award of the University.

3. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner on the basis of papers had secured 484 marks and his marks were higher than respondent No. 4. If the marks obtained after re-evaluation are not to be taken into consideration the very purpose of the re-evaluation is defeated. The apex Court in Jagat Narain Gupta v. The Punjab University decided on 2-5-1989 (sic) Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1990 arising out of SLP Civil No. (s) 7674 of 1989, had observed that the cost of litigation will be several limes more than the cost of a Gold Medal and directed the University to grant Gold Medal. This Court subsequently in CWP No. 5768 of 1990, decided on 13-9-1990 on somewhat identical facts had issued a direction to the University to award Gold Medal to the petitioner.

4. In this view of the matter, the respondent-University is directed to awardUniversity Medal to the petitioner without depriving respondent No. 4 of the University Medal given to her.

5. The writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.

6. Petition allowed.