- (1.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner took admission into the B.E. Degree course (Electronics and Communication) in the Maharishi Arvind Institute of Engineering and Technology, Jaipur affiliated to the University of Rajasthan commencing 2004. The petitioner passed all the examinations conducted by the University as required for obtaining a degree in B.E. from the University of Rajasthan. Mark-sheets evidencing passing of the B.E. (Electronics and Communication) were issued to the petitioners. After completion of degree course, the petitioner states to have been gainfully employed.
(2.) ON 30.04.2010, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned order at the instance of the University of Rajasthan whereby the petitioner was asked to return the original mark-sheet of the examination of July 2008 pertaining to subject of Applied Electronics in IV Semester of B.E. Course and to obtain amended mark-sheet after writing an examination afresh in the said paper as the marks earlier awarded to the petitioner in the aforesaid paper were erroneously awarded showing him to have passed the said paper when in fact he had failed it. The petitioner, therefore, in these circumstances approached this Court on the ground that his mark-sheet pertaining to IV semester more particularly the subject of Applied Electronics could not be altered after a delay of about 18 months more so when the mark-sheet issued to him in the first instance was not a consequence of any fraud or misrepresentation and that the petitioner has already passed out of college in the meantime and was in employment. In reply to the writ petition, it has been contended by the University of Rajasthan that the result of B.E. (E.C. Branch) IV Semester Examination 2008 was declared on 17.11.2008. Counsel submits that some of the students applied for revaluation of their paper in Applied Statistics whereupon it came to the notice on scrutiny of answer books that examiner No.60729-02 had entered wrong marks in the award-sheet in respect of 224 students. Counsel submits that marks of the students were corrected as per their answer books and consequent upon these corrections, result of 37 candidates including the petitioner was adversely affected. It is submitted that as per the order of Vice-Chancellor passed on 28.07.2009, changes were made in the Tabulation Registers and the examiner responsible for the error has been debarred from examination remuneration work for five years. It has been contended that the University had the obvious right to direct rectification in the mark-sheet where ex facie errors are detected as in the instance case. It has been further submitted that the University has right to rectify mark-sheet wrongly issued on the basis of an administrative error and the petitioner has no legal right to the perpetuation of an obvious error to his advantage. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 as also the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. University of Jodhpur [2002 (2) WLC (Raj.) 776] wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that where a student was allowed to appear in M.Com (Final) Examination owing to an error by the University, the University could not subsequently require such a candidate who had in the meantime written the M.Com (Final) Examination to rewrite the M.Com (Final) Examination after cancelling the earlier examination even on the alleged ground of suppression of fact and fraud by the student as it was the duty of the University to be vigilant. The Hon'ble Division Bench further held that equity would intervene to protect such a student where contrarily the student would be subjected to serious consequences. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that "equity has, accordingly to Maine, a kind of "supplementary or residuary jurisdiction" without which law would have been fatally stunted. The petitioner has left the studies long back, he must be in service now. Thus, lapse of time, the fact that the situation has become irreversible and the fact that respondent authorities were also responsible for creating such a situation and the fact that it is not wise to allow to go wait (sic waste) the valuable years which he invested in perusing the studies and passed the examination are mitigating circumstances, which courts of justice have always considered and must consider to grant relief." Reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samita Johnbhai Master and Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors. [AIR 1981 SC 1633] where equity had been invoked to grant relief by the Courts in cases of irreversible situations. In the context of the enunciation of law as detailed above, I am of the considered view that as the mark-sheet of the petitioner pertaining to subject Applied Electronics in IV Semester of B.E. Course was a result of an administrative error of the University and not a consequence of any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner, at a belated stage subsequent to the petitioner having passed out from the college and being in employment, there was no good ground to cancel the petitioner's original marks in the subject of Applied Electronics (IV Semester) and require him to rewrite the examination in the aforesaid paper. It is universal knowledge that writing an examination is a process undertaken in the course of study and to require a person to rewrite an examination years subsequent to his having passed the course would be burdening the person / student with an extremely difficult if not impossible task. It is not just to require an examinee-student to revert to academies long left behind. In this view of the matter, it is evident that the present case is a hard case where equity should be invoked for the protection of the petitioner.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.04.2010, issued by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue a degree certificate of B.E. Course to the petitioner as per the original mark-sheet issued to him. Stay application needs no address in view of the writ petition being allowed.;