Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Panjab University To Pay ₹1 Lakh To Law Student For Failing Him By Arbitrarily Reducing Marks

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 Lakh on Panjab University for declaring a law student 'fail' in a paper of BA LLB 6th Semester.

Considering the seriousness of the issue that may have an effect on the career of student, Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri directed the Vice Chancellor to look into the issue and take corrective measures within two months.

“Since the career of the petitioner has been affected because of wrongful action of the respondent-University, he is entitled for exemplary costs in the nature of compensation which are assessed as Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) which shall be paid by the respondent-University to the petitioner within a period of two months from today,” the Court observed.

It added that the University would pay the amount and then the Vice Chancellor would be at liberty to recover the same from officials who may be found guilty in the department inquiry.

The student had challenged the result declared in December 2023 of the paper 'Land Law and Rent Laws' for which re-appear examination was held in May 2023. He had earlier failed in the paper when exam was taken in May 2019.

When the student had taken admission in the academic session of 2016-17, the criteria of 60:40 marks - 60 for the theory paper and 40 for internal assessment was applicable.

However, the regulations were amended in 2022 w.e.f from December 2018 and the ratio of theory paper and internal assessment was changed from 60:40 to 80:20. A student was required to secure 45 percent marks in internal assessment and theory paper jointly.

When the student took the examination in May 2023, he was given the paper with maximum marks of 80. He scored 54 and thus was successful. However, the university adopted a process of scaling down the student's marks from 54 out of 80 to 41 out of 60. This way he was declared fail.

During the hearing, the Court questioned the university decision and asked whether there was any instruction or provision of law under which the scaling happened.

“The only answer which they have given to this Court is that it is a past practice and by virtue of the same, they have been converting the criteria/formula for assessment of marks of their own at the clerical and superintendent level but there is no instructions or any provision of law of University despite the fact that the petitioner was subjected to an examination paper in which the maximum marks as reproduced above were 80,” the Court said.

The University had also justified the decision, saying since the student was of academic session 2016 but had appeared in May 2023, he was subjected to a paper of the ratio of 80:20 instead of 60:40 and thus his marks were reduced proportionately.

However, the Court found the reasoning to be perverse and absolutely unsustainable.

“When a student has been subjected to his examination paper carrying maximum marks of 80 and he passes the examination by securing 54 marks then in case the University needs to scale down and reduce the marks on proportionate basis then the same has to be done by adopting any formula prescribed under any law. There is nothing on record nor it has been shown to the Court and rather it has been so stated by the officers who are present in the Court and learned counsel for the respondent-University that there is no formula designed and there is no law or source of power by which such a power was exercised by the examination department of the University”

It added the decision was based on whims and fancies which had an effect on the career of a student. It was not only illegal and perverse but it is also deprecated by this Court, the Single Judge said.

“Had it been a case that for the purpose of scaling down or reducing of the marks there was any provision of law which would be applicable to those students who are governed by old regulations of the University then it would have been a different situation but in the absence of any power or any authority of law the exercise has been conducted by the clerical staff on their own without any guidelines or any rules and regulations..”

The Court also rejected the argument of past practice and said the same is not supported by any provision of law.

“If errors or illegal actions have been committed by the respondent-University, the same cannot be applied to the present case merely because the same is a past practice. The respondent-University is always within its rights to incorporate any provision having a force of law to exercise a power for the purpose of creating any equality or proportionate distribution of marks which is absent in the present case. However, the same cannot be done only on the basis of precedents which ultimately deprives the rights of their own students,” it said.

The Court further said students of the University cannot be left to the whims and fancies of the varsity staff who create their own law.

“The rule of law has to prevail in all circumstances. In the Indian Legal System the old analytical school of thought which was propounded by Austin, stated that law is a command of the sovereign, will not apply to the Indian Legal System after attaining of independence. Indian Legal System is governed by rule of law in which the Constitution of India is supreme. Particularly, the students cannot be dealt with on the whims and fancies of the administrative staff of an educational institution which is a known esteemed institution. The effect of scaling down of marks has severely jeopardized the career of the petitioner and this Court will never approve of such a practice which is not supported by any law,” it added.

The Court also said the university was well aware that the student ought to have been given a theory paper of 60 marks but instead was given a paper of 80 marks to avoid their own workload.

“But the consequence of the same was that the marks of petitioner were reduced by scaling down from 54 to 41 which resulted in less than 45% marks and failed the petitioner. Such scaling down by the administrative staff of examination branch was without any provision or authority of law,” the Court said as it set aside the result and asked the university to process the grant of degree to the student.

Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for respondents.

Title: Rohan Rana v. Panjab University and others

  Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 287

Click here to read/download the order