Om Prakash, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the IInd, IIIrd, and IVth year B.E. and M.E. students of Engineering Faculty of the Allahabad University, for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Registrar dated 17 -8 -1984 (annexure 3 to the writ petition). Asking the Assistant Registrar (Accounts) not to accept fees for revaluation from B.E. and M.E., candidates and to refund the fee, if already deposited for revaluation by the said candidates, as the Executive Council, vide its resolution No. 147 dated July 3, 1984 abolished revaluation. The Allahabad University introduced the revaluation system of scripts in the year 1974 in the Engineering Faculty and that continued until the aforesaid order dated 17 -8 -1984 was passed by the Registrar. The B.E. and M.E. students, who were not satisfied with the marking done by the examiners, applied for revaluation. Application for revaluation of script was to be made within 30 days of the date of declaration of the results. The examinations relating to the session 1983 -84 ended in June 1984 and the results were declared for the 1st, IInd, IIIrd and IVth year on 18th July, 24th July, 25th July and 3rd August, 1984 respectively. Some of the students applied for revaluation and paid the necessary fee. It is at that stage that the petitioners came to know that the revaluation system was abruptly discontinued by the University. The contentions of the petitioners are as follows: - - (i) that abolition of revaluation violated Art. 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as, the revaluation system has been continuing in all other Faculties of Allahabad University; (ii) that the abolition of revaluation violated principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners; (iii) that the abolition is irrational and inexpedient, as the system of revaluation proved to be very useful and efficacious and (iv) that the Executive Council travelled beyond its jurisdiction in having abolished the revaluation system, as the draft proposed by the Academic council, recommending the abolition of revaluation from the examination of 1983, was amended without its approval in violation of sub -s. (4) of S. 52 of the Uttar Pradesh Universities Act, 1973 (for short the Act 1973). We have heard Sri G.N. Varma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.P. Gupta, for the opposite party No. 1 at length. We do not agree with Sri Varma that the discontinuation of the revaluation scheme infringed Art. 14 of the Constitution of India in any way. The Engineering Faculty like other Faculties of the Allahabad University is a class by itself and the petitioners cannot successfully urge violation of Art. 14 on the ground that the system of revaluation was extinguished only in the Engineering Faculty and not in other Faculties. The petitioners could have pleaded violation of Art. 14 only when there was discrimination amongst the students of B.E. and M.E. Engineering Faculty inter se. The scheme having been abolished from the Engineering Faculty itself, there is no violation of Art. 14.
(2.) Then the question is whether the impugned order dated 17 -8 -1984 and the resolution, passed by the Executive council, deleting the Ordinance providing for revaluation of scripts can be challenged on the ground that before abolishing the revaluation no opportunity was given to the petitioners of being heard and that the system which was very useful and rational was done away with without any rhyme and reason.
(3.) Sri Gupta submitted that denial of right to ask for revaluation to examinees, who were dissatisfied with the results did not visit them with adverse civil consequences and, therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice. It was also argued by him that a question whether the provision for revaluation should be retained or discontinued, related to the matter of policy and no right was wasted with the students of Engineering Faculty to force the Faculty to retain the provision for revaluation. We agree with the submissions of Sri Gupta. The Executive Council of the University is the Chief Executive cum legislative body. An Ordinance was made by the Executive Council for having introduced revaluation system. The said Ordinance providing for revaluation has been repealed by another Ordinance. There is no duty of the Legislative Body, which the Executive council is, to observe the principles of natural justice. Moreover, it is a matter of policy whether a given system relating to conduct of examinations is to be retained or abolished and the petitioners cannot compel the Executive council to retain the provision for revaluation, howsoever useful, beneficial or efficacious it may be. We are fortified in taking this view by a decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v/s. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth : AIR 1984 SC 1543. In the said case the petitioners challenged cls. (1) and (3) of Regn. 104 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations 1977 on the ground that the impugned clauses were violative of the principles of natural justice. Clause (1) of the Regn. 104 entitled a candidate who appeared at the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination, to apply for verification of marks in any particular subject. The clause created a rider that the verification would be restricted to checking whether all the answers have been examined and that there has been no mistake in totalling of marks for each question in the said subject and that no revaluation of answer books or supplements shall be done. Clause (3) disentitled a candidate from claiming revaluation or disclosure or inspection of the answer books. The High Court rejected the contention of the petitioners that the cls. (1) and (3) were invalid on the ground that the principles of natural justice were violated. The Supreme Court approving this view of the High Court said (Para 12): "In our opinion, the High Court was perfectly right in taking this view and in holding that Process of evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks" under cl. (3) of regn. 104 does not attract the principles of natural justice since no decision making process which brings about adverse evil consequences to the examinees is involved. The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners." Supported by the decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that the validity of deletion of the Ordinance providing for revaluation cannot be attacked on the ground that the principles of natural justice were violated. Whereas the High Court of Bombay held that the clauses (1) and (3) cannot be declared invalid on ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the said High Court observed that the prohibition against the inspection or disclosure of the answer papers and other documents and the declaration made in the impugned clause that they are "treated by the Divisional Board as confidential documents" do not serve any of the purposes of the Act and hence these provisions are ultra vires. Disapproving this view of the High Court, the Supreme Court observed (Para 16): "In our opinion, the aforesaid approach made by the High Court is wholly incorrect and fallacious. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation -making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide that policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity." So the legislative powers exercised by the Executive Council can be impugned only on the ground that it travelled beyond the powers so vested in it and not on the ground that abolition of the revaluation scheme was inexpedient or irrational. This being a matter of policy, the petitioner have no right to force the Executive Council to retain the system of revaluation.;