Holding

The Executive Council was within its statutory powers to cancel the first revaluation and direct a second revaluation, and the second revaluation was not arbitrary or biased.

Summary

The petitioner, a medical student, applied for revaluation of his answer books under Poona University Ordinance 134A. After the first revaluation, a committee recommended cancelling the results, and the University Executive Council ordered a fresh, second revaluation conducted outside the state. The petitioner challenged this action, alleging arbitrariness, lack of statutory authority for a second revaluation, and bias because some original examiners were on the committee. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, and the Supreme Court, reviewing the special leave petition, held that the Executive Council acted within its powers, as Ordinance 146 permits further action to correct examination results, and the presence of original examiners did not create bias. Consequently, the Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the second revaluation.

Issues considered

Whether the University Executive Council had the authority under the Poona University Act and its Ordinances to cancel a first revaluation and order a second revaluation.
Whether ordering a second revaluation without explicit statutory provision is arbitrary or violative of natural justice.
Whether the inclusion of original examiners in the enquiry committee creates bias rendering the second revaluation invalid.
Whether the High Court erred in refusing relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Poona University Act, 1974s. Ordinance 134A, s. Ordinance 146

Subjects

revaluationuniversity examinationsexecutive council powersadministrative lawnatural justicebiasspecial leave petitioneducational institutions

Judgment

A BHUSHAN UTT AM KHARE
v.
DEAN, B.J. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS.

JANUARY 28, 1992

B [S. RATNA VEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEE VI, JJ.]

Poona University Act. J974---0rdinance 134A and 146-Revalua-.
tion of answer books-Whether second revaluation permissible.

Consequent upon the announcement of his M.B.B.S. Examina-
c tion result on 12.12.1990, the petitioner alongwith other 166 stu-
dents, applied for revaluation of answer books under University of
Poona Ordinance 134A. When the revaluation results were declared,
certain students made representation oto the University Authorities
for their answer papers b.eing revalued from the same set of exa-
miners. The University on consideration of that representation ap-
D pointed a Committee for scrutiny and to reassess theory papers of
the students acquiring more than 20% marks after revaluation, from
senior teachers of the Faculty. After scrutiny, it was found out that
the marks are closer to the·original marks in Medicine, Surgery and
Preventive and Social Medicine. The Commitee therefore recom-
mended that the entire revaluation of the papers should he can-
E celled. The Executive Council by a resolution cancelled the result of
the revaluation and directed fresh revaluation and the second re-
valuation was done through the examiners outside the Sate and the
result declared on the basis thereof. The petitioner and others chal-
lenged the aforesaid decision of the Executive Council cancelling
·the earlier revaluation and directing a second revaluation by means
F of writ petitions. It was contended before the High Court on behalf
of the petitioners that the action of the ExecuHve Council was arbi-
trary inasmuch as there was no, malpractice, fraud or anything ob-
jectionable to the revaluation as the examiners were chosen by the
Vice-Chancellor as enjoined under the Ordinance. Hence the can-
cellation of revaluation was not proper. The High Court repelled
G the two contentions advanced before it and dismissed the writ peti-
tions. Hence this Petition for Special Leave to appeal.

Dismissing the Petition for special leave to appeal, this Court,

HELD: In deciding the matters relating to orders passed by
H authorities of educational institutions, the Court should normally be

386
•

B.U. KHARE v. MEDICAL COLLEGE 387

-"'.• very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling A,
within the jnrisdiction of educational authorities should normally
be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them
only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. [390 B]

Dnde'r Ordinance 134A, the Vice-Chancellor shall use his dis-
cretionary power to decide as to whether all the applications re- .B
ceived from the candidates, considered for revaluation or not. If as
a result of revaluation of answer-books, the marks obtained by the
candidate increase over the original marks by 10% or more then
only the result of revaluation will be accepted by the University.
[388 C-D)
Ordinance 146 is comprehensive enough to include revaluation c
also for further action. The fact that two examiners were also the
members of the Committee which recommended for revaluation cannot
result in any bias even if they had been directly concerned with the
original evaluation. It is true that in the second revaluation also
there had been some changes between the original valuation and
the revaluation results. However, it is not so glaring or demonstra- D
bly unconscionable as seen in the first revaluation. [390 D)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURiSDICTION: Special leav~ Petition (Civil)
No. 10330of1991. c

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.1991 of the Bombay High E
Court in Writ Petition No. 186of1991.

Kapil Sibal, Makrand D. Adkar and Ejaz Maqbool for the Petitioner.

R.D. Tulpule, D.M.Nargolkar, Ms.Kiran Bhagalia, Ms.V.D.Khanna
and A.M. Khanwilkar for the respondents.
F
Ca veator-in,person.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

The petitioner, Bhushan Uttam Khare, appeared for the Third Year
MB.B.S. Examination held by University of Poona in the months of
October-November, 1990. The results of the said examination were de- G
clared on 12.12.1990. As per University of Poona Ordinance 134A, the
petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer papers. 167 students in:
eluding the petitioner had applied for revaluation. When the revaluation
results were declared, certain students made representation to the Uni ver-

--
sity authorities for their answer papers being. revaluate from the same set
of examiners. H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1992) 1 S.C.R.

A On receipt of the representation, the Executive Council of Univer-
sity appointed a Committee to make an enquiry. On the report of the
Committee, the University of Poona decided to cancel the revitluation
results and to conduct further revaluation. This decision of the executive
Council cancelling the earlier revaluation and directing a second revalua-
tion was challenged by the petitioner and others in writ petitions filed
B before the High Court at Bombay. By the impugned judgment dated May
3, 1991 the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the
decision, the petitioners has moved this petition for special leave.

The Poona University Act, 1974 defines the powers and duties of the
Executive Council. The Executive Council may make Ordinances to pro- +
C vide for the conduct of the examinations. Under Ordinance l 34A, the
Vice-Chancellor shall use his discretionery powers to decide as to whether
all the applications received from the candidates, be considered for re-
valuation or not. If as a result of revaluation of answer-books, the marks
obtained by the candidate increase over the .original marks by 10% or
more of the marks carried by the paper then only the result of revaluation
D will be accepted by the University. Application for verification of answer-
books will be entertained within a period of two weeks from the date of
declaration of the results.

Ordina~ce.146 reads:

E "146. In any case where it is found that the result of an
examination has been affected by error, malpractice, fraud,
improper conduct or other course of whatsoever nature, the
Executive Council shall have power to amend such result in
such manner as shall be in accord with the true position and to
make such declaration as the Executive Council shall consider
F necessary in that behalf. Provided that ,.but subject to 0.147,
no result shall be amended after the expiration of six months
from the date of publication of the said result."
In the Third Year M.B.B.S. Examination, 402 students appeared for
the examination and 167 students applied for revaluation of the answer
G books. When the representation of students opting for revaluation was
placed before the Executive Council as glaring difference was indicated, a
Committee was appointed for scrutiny and to reassess theory papers of the
students acquiring more than 20% marks after revaluation , from senior
teachers of the Faculty. After scrutiny, it was found out that the marks are
closer to the original marks in Medicine, Surgery and Preventive and
H Social Medicine. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the entire
revaluation of the papers should be cancelled. This report of the
B.U. KHARE v. MEDICAL COLLEGE 389

-,Z Committee was placed before the Executive Council in its meeting held A
on March 27, 1991 and the Council by the resolution cancelled the result -
of the revaluation and directed fresh revaluation. The second revaluation ,-
was done through the examiner; outside the St~te.

The results on revaluation intimated to the Medical College. thus
stood cancelled and the final results were declared in pursuance to the B
second revaluation. The action of the Executive Council was attacked on
the grounds that it was an arbitrary action; that the choice ofthe examin-
ers was that of the Vice•Chancellor as enjoined under the Ordinance and
there was no glaring instance of any malpractice, fraud or other course of
. whatsoever nature to cancel the revaluation and 'in the absence of any
provision in the statute or the Ordinance for a second revaluation, the C
decision taken by the Executive Council is unwarranted and, therefore,
illegal. ·

In repelling these contentions, the High Court has taken the view
that educational institutions set up Enquiry Committee to deal with the . D
problem posed by the adoption of unfair means and it is normally within·
their domestic jurisdiction to decide all questions in the light of the miite-
rial adduced. Unless there is an absolute and compelling justification, the
Writ Court is slow to interfere with the autonomous activity of the Execu-
tive Councils. The High Court said that the material on record indicated ·
that this is not a case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution and since the Court has foun(I that there is material to reach E
the decision as regards cancellation of the impugned result of revaluation,
·the contentions taken up by the petitioner are untenable. ·

The petitioners has reiterated the submissions that there had been no
improper conduct come to light and the absence of any provision· for a F
second revaluation vitiates the whole action. We have been taken through
a comparative chart containing the marks awarded in the original exami-
nation, the first revaluation and the second revaluaiion. The attempt of
the learned counsel for the petitioners had been to make out that the
disparity was not such as to indicate any improper practice and that the
Comm.ittee constituted consisted of four members of whom two were G
original examiners and the report submitted by that Co111mittee should not
have been made the basis for the decision which afftll!ted the prospects
and career of a large number of medical students. The learned counsel for
the University as also the standing counsel for the State drew our attention
to the fact that Executive Council had only cautiously proceeded in the
matter and before ordering cancellation a probe was made and the mem- H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] I S.C.R.

A bers of the Enquiry Committee. were competent persons and that there is
no illegality which warrants interference of the Court.

We have considered all the materials placed before us in the light of
arguments advanced keeping in mind the well accepted principle that in
deciding the matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational
B institutions, the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its
jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational
authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should
interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of
justice. We are satisfied that there had been sufficient material before the
Executive Council to proceed in the manner in which it has done. It is not
c correct to say that the University had acted on non-existing rule for order-
ing revaluation. Ordinance I 46 is comprehensive enough to include re-
valuation also for further action. The fact that two examiners were also
the members of the Committee which rerommended for revaluation can-
not result in any bias even if they had been directly concerned with the
original evaluation. It is true that in the second revaluation also there had
D been some changes between the original valuation and the revaluation
results. However, it is not so glaring or demonstrably unconscionable as
seen in the first revaluation. We cannot, therefore, accept the contention
of the petitioner that the High Court had erred in not granting the relief
sought for. We can only observe that the case of the petitioner, who alone
has come before this Court and who had secured higher marks in the first
E revaluation and is, therefore, aggrieved by the cancellation of the same,
would be duly considered in the selection for Post-Graduate Course. The
special leave petition is dismissed.

Y.L. SLP dismissed.