M. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Chancellor on 29-8-87 rejecting the representation dated 11-12-1986 filed by the petitioner against the decision of the Examinations Committee dated 23-11-1986 whereby it was decided to reduce the marks of the petitioner in LL.B. (First year).
(2.) THE petitioner appeared in the LL.B. (First year) Examination of 1986 from Agra College, Agra (hereinafer referred to as the College) with roll number as 2280. She appeared in six papers, viz., Law of Contract, Law of Torts and Essement, Law of Agreement and Procedure, Hindu Law, Mohammadan Law, Indian Constitutional Law & Indian Legal History. After the examination, the answer books were sent to the relevant examiners, who after evaluating the same submitted the mark sheets The tabulation work was also completed but before the result could be finalised and declared, the Vice-Chancellor received a number of complaints that certain influential persons connected with the University had approached the examiners for LL.B. (First year) Examination of 1986 and as a result of which have succeeded in getting the marks of their respective wards increased, which actually they did not deserve. One of the complaint was made by a senior Professor of the University. The complaints included the roll number of the petitioner along with many others. After receiving the complaints the Vice-Chancellor got it verified and found that there was prima facie some truth in it. He further found on enquiry that the normal rule of sending the answer books have also been violated in as much as normally half of the answer books were always sent to the external examiners and other half was retained for the internal examiners but this rule was violated for LL.B. (First year) Examinations of 1986 particularly in regard to those candidates whose roll numbers were mentioned in the complaints. The complaints did not appear to be baseless.
(3.) THE Vice-Chancellor, on further enquiry, found that the roll numbers mentioned in the complaint, were of the relatives of teachers and other influential persons who mattered in the University. Most of them secured very high percentage of marks. He after enquiry was satisfied that it was not a mere coincidence or chance but a clear manipulation right from the initial stages when roll numbers were assigned to the candidates. As the matter was extremely urgent, the Vice-Chancellor exercising his powers under section 13 (6) of the U. P. State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) took immediate action and ordered that the answer books of all those candidates who had secured more than 65% marks be reevaluated by two out-side examiners. The answer books were accordingly sent for revaluation. The results obtained were placed before the Examinations Committee. Among all the candidates whose answer books were revalued, the difference in the case of the petitioner was highest. It was a difference of 132 marks. Initially she was given 499 marks but after revaluation she got only 367 marks.;