IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.3990/2018 (EDN – EX) BETWEEN :
Mr. DEVAKUMAR S.V., S/O VIJAYAKUMAR S.D., AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT SURAGAHALLI VILLAGE HALAGAHALLI POST PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHOK HANDE, ADV.) AND :
1 . THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE KRISHNARAJA BOULEVARD ROAD, K.G. KOPPAL, MYSURU-570006 2 . THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (EXAMINATION) UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE, CRAWFORD HALL MYSURU-570006 3 . THE PRINCIPAL SARADA VILAS COLLEGE 5TH CROSS ROAD KRISHNAMURTHY PURAM MYSURU-570004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.P.RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R-1; R-2 & R-3 ARE SERVED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CANCEL NCL AND ALLOT GRADING OF B.SC. IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AS PER THE ACADEMIC RECORDS OF 2013-2016 OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
a. To direct the respondent No1 to cancel NCL and allot grading of B.Sc in favour of the petitioner as per the academic records of 2013-16 of the petitioner.
b. To quash the letter bearing No.pa.vi.3.3/BSC/29/2017-18, dated 22.11.2017 Annexure-D, issued by the respondent No.2.
c. Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The petitioner submits that he pursued B.Sc degree course during the academic years 2013 to 2016 in the respondent No.3 college affiliated to the respondent No.1 University and after passing B.Sc successfully, he joined B.Ed course at Sri Shankar College of Education, Ponnampet, Kodagu District. It is submitted that the marks sheet issued by the respondent-university indicated NCL (Not completed lower examination). The petitioner applied for cancellation/correction of the same. However, the respondent No.2 rejected the said request on the premise that the petitioner has not passed physics theory paper pertaining to II Semester May/June 2014 and permitted the petitioner to re-take physics theory examination paper. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the statement of marks sheet issued by the respondent No.1 in respect of II Semester May/June 2014 shows that the petitioner has passed in physics theory paper. Even in the communication (Examination Ledger) sent by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.3, it has been reflected that the petitioner has passed the physics theory paper. The respondent No.1 has even issued migration certificate to the petitioner before he joined B.Ed course at Kodagu. Transfer certificate has also been issued by the respondent No.3 after confirming that the petitioner has passed out the B.Sc course in all subjects. The respondent No.1 university after three years, has issued the revised marks sheet dated 12.10.2017 declaring that the petitioner has failed in physics theory paper. Due to the negligent action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner is facing a bleak future.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent university would submit that the petitioner has appeared for the Final Year B.Sc course during May/June 2016 wherein it was shown as NCL in the remarks column though the petitioner had passed in all the subjects of the said year. A typographical error has crept in while issuing the statement of marks of May/June 2014 showing ‘pass’ in the remarks column, whereas the marks was specifically shown as 6 for the theory out of 60 and 8 for viva-voce out of 10 and the total was 14 marks which is the minimum marks prescribed for pass. This being within the knowledge of the petitioner, no attempt was made to get the same corrected immediately. On the request made by the petitioner to correct the marks sheet of the final year during 2017, the mistake crept in was noticed by the university and revised marks sheet has been issued. There is no negligence or want of bonafides on the part of the university in issuing the marks sheet as per Annexure- E showing the result in the marks column as 'pass'. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. It is trite that no person is infallible. To commit error is human but repeating such error is not heroism. Respondent No.1 is the statutory authority empowered to issue marks sheets and confer degrees to the students on the basis of which the life of a student would be structured or designed. The marks sheets would decide the destiny of the student. Hence, the marks sheets play a pivotal role as far as the students career is concerned. Hence, the issuance authority has to be careful in recording the marks and the remarks as well.
7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the marks sheet at Annexure-E depicts 6 marks in theory examination of physics secured by the petitioner out of 60 and 8 in the practical examination out of 10. The said mistake being apparent, in the remarks column, it would have been shown as 'fail' as far as physics paper is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner had failed even in the chemistry paper and in the remarks column, it was shown as 'fail'. However, the result of the petitioner is shown as 'fail'. It was obligatory on the part of the University to verify the same atleast while forwarding the examination ledger to the respondent No.3. Strangely, respondent No.1 has also issued the migration certificate to enable the petitioner to join the B.Ed course. Thus, it is obvious that the negligence of the respondent University in issuing the incorrect marks sheet is apparent. However, there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner also. Having noticed the inconsistencies found in the marks sheet on 16.9.2014 as per Annexure-E, the petitioner could have sought for correction of the same, but having slept over the matter, has sought for the correction in the year 2017 pursuant to which the revised marks sheet has been issued. Hence, the relief sought by the petitioner to cancel NCL and allot grading of B.Sc in favour of the petitioner as per the academic records of 2013 and 2016 cannot be granted.
However, the petitioner has to be compensated suitably for the mistake committed by the university in issuing the marks sheets with the 'pass' remarks and revising it after three years. The petitioner is permitted to take the II Semester B.Sc., examination of the physics theory paper in the next ensuing examination and the respondent university shall pay compensatory cost of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner. The compensatory cost shall be recovered from the concerned official/officer.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: