M.Katju - (1.) THE petitioners appeared for the M.A./M.Sc examination in Home Science in the Banaras Hindu University held in May, 1991. THEre were three subjects in the M.A./M.Sc. Home Science course viz (1) Home Management (2) Foods and Nutrition, and (3) Extension Education THEre is an option to choose between Foods and Nutrition or Home Management. THE petitioners opted for the former.
(2.) AT the examination for Foods and Nutrition (Paper I) held on 2-5-1991 the petitioners walked out due to certain grievances, and by means of this writ petition they have prayed for a mandamus directing the University authorities to hold a re-examination in paper I (Food and Nutrition), there is also a prayer for quashing the examination of Paper III of Home Management, but I am not inclined to grant this prayer as the candidates for this paper have not been impleaded. The principal grievance in this petition is against respondent No. 4. It is alleged in para 3, and also in several subsequent paragraphs of the petition, that respondent No 4 always acts unfairly and favours students of her subject i.e. Home Management It has always been her desire that a student of her subject tops the merit list. Petitioner No. 1 had 79.6% marks in the 1st year examination, and had a lead of 40 marks over the next in the merit who had only 75.6% but since the latter candidate belonged to Home Management respondent No. 4 did not want petitioner No. 1 to top in the overall merit list, and she played tricks in order to succeed in her improper design, details of which are given in paras 7 to 22 of the writ petition. Under the relevant rules (annexed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit of the University) the Academic Council appoints a Board of Examiners consisting of the Head of Department (who will be the Convenor), and two senior most teachers of the Department or having specialisation in the subject, as the case may be. Under Rule 7 of these rules (Annexure- 2 to the counter affidavit) the Convenor presides at the meeting of the Board.
(3.) SINCE Dr. Purnima Srivastava, the Head of Department dissociated herself from the examination (as one of the candidates was her relative) respondent No. 4 was appointed the Convenor of the Board of Examiners. The specific grievances of the petitioners are mentioned in paras 7 to 22 to writ petition but it is not necessary for this Court to go into these allegations in detail. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is reluctant to interfere in educational matters and ordinarily it is inclined to leave such matters to be decided by the: concerned educational authorities. However, there is no absolute bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction in the educational field, and when this court Binds that there is some illegality it can interfere However, a brief reference may be made to some of the petitioners' allegations.;