- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhushan Uttam Khare v. Dean, B.J Medical College And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Bhushan Uttam Khare, a Third Year MBBS student, appeared for the University of Poona examination held in October-November 1990. After the results were declared on 12 December 1990, he and 166 other students invoked Ordinance 134-A to request revaluation of their answer papers. When the revaluation results became public, several students complained that the same set of examiners had re-marked their scripts.
The University’s Executive Council instituted an enquiry committee. On receiving the committee’s report, the Council cancelled the initial revaluation results and ordered a fresh (second) revaluation by examiners from outside the State. Students, including the petitioner, challenged this decision in writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, asserting that the University acted arbitrarily and without statutory authority. On 3 May 1991 the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The petitioner then sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Executive Council of the University of Poona had statutory authority under Ordinance 146 to cancel the first revaluation and order a second revaluation.
- Whether the Council’s action was arbitrary or vitiated by bias because two original examiners sat on the enquiry committee that recommended cancellation.
- Whether the disparity between the original marks, the first revaluation, and the second revaluation justified judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- No instance of malpractice or improper conduct was established to warrant cancellation of the first revaluation.
- The University statutes and ordinances contain no provision permitting a second revaluation; therefore, the Executive Council acted beyond its powers.
- The enquiry committee’s composition was flawed because two of its four members had participated in the original valuation, leading to potential bias.
- The variations in marks between valuations were not so glaring as to indicate fraud or error.
University and State’s Arguments
- The Executive Council proceeded cautiously by appointing a competent enquiry committee before taking any decision.
- Ordinance 146 is broad enough to empower the Council to amend results affected by “error, malpractice, fraud, improper conduct or other cause of whatsoever nature,” which encompasses ordering a second revaluation.
- The presence of original examiners on the committee did not create bias; their expertise helped assess the gravity of discrepancies.
- The High Court correctly exercised restraint, as courts should be slow to interfere with academic bodies unless a clear illegality is shown.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that courts ordinarily defer to the autonomy of educational authorities, intervening only when justice so requires. It found “sufficient material” before the Executive Council to justify cancelling the first revaluation. Ordinance 146 was interpreted as “comprehensive enough” to authorise the Council to correct results, including through a further revaluation. The Court rejected the allegation of bias, noting that the involvement of two original examiners on the committee did not, by itself, taint the process. Although some variance persisted after the second revaluation, it was not as “glaring or demonstrably unconscionable” as in the first revaluation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly refused relief under Article 226.
Holding and Implications
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION DISMISSED.
The University’s cancellation of the first revaluation and its replacement with a second revaluation stand affirmed. The decision directly affects only the parties involved; it creates no new legal precedent beyond reinforcing judicial reluctance to interfere in academic matters absent compelling illegality.
Order
1. The petitioner, Bhushan Uttam Khare, appeared for the Third Year MBBS Examination held by University of Poona in the months of October-November, 1990. The results of the said examination were declared on December 12, 1990. As per University of Poona Ordinance 134-A, the petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer papers. 167 students including the petitioner had applied for revaluation. When the revaluation results were declared, certain students made representation to the University authorities for their answer papers being revalued from the same set of examiners.
2. On receipt of the representation, the Executive Council of University appointed a Committee to make an enquiry. On the report of the Committee, the University of Poona decided to cancel the revaluation results and to conduct further revaluation. This decision of the Executive Council cancelling the earlier revaluation and directing a second revaluation was challenged by the petitioner and others in writ petitions filed 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 petitioner has moved this petition for special leave.
3. The Poona University Act, 1974 defines the powers and duties of the Executive Council. The Executive Council may make Ordinances to provide for the conduct of examinations. Under Ordinance 134-A, the Vice-Chancellor shall use his discretionary powers to decide as to whether all the applications received from the candidates be 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 per cent or more of the marks carried by the paper then only the result of revaluation 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.
Ordinance 146 reads:
“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 necessary in that behalf:
Provided that, but subject to Ordinance 147, no result shall be amended after the expiration of six months from the date of publication of the said result.”
4. In the Third Year MBBS Examination, 402 students appeared for the examination and 167 students applied for revaluation of the answer 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 per cent 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. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the entire revaluation of the papers should be cancelled. This report of the Committee was placed before the Executive Council in its meeting held 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 examiners outside the State.
5. The results on revaluation intimated to the Medical College thus stood cancelled and the final results were declared in pursuance of the second revaluation. The action of the Executive Council was attacked on the grounds that it was an arbitrary action; that the choice of the examiners 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 decision taken by the Executive Council is unwarranted and, therefore, illegal.
6. In repelling these contentions, the High Court has taken the view that educational institutions set up Enquiry Committee to deal with the 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 material adduced. Unless there is an absolute and compelling justification, the writ court is slow to interfere with the autonomous activity of the Executive 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 found that there is material to reach the decision as regards cancellation of the impugned result of revaluation, the contentions taken up by the petitioner are untenable.
7. The petitioner has reiterated the submissions that there had been no improper conduct come to light and the absence of any provision for a second revaluation vitiates the whole action. We have been taken through a comparative chart containing the marks awarded in the original examination, the first revaluation and the second revaluation. The attempt of the learned counsel for the petitioner had been to make out that the disparity was not such as to indicate any improper practice and that the Committee constituted consisted of four members of whom two were original examiners and the report submitted by that Committee should not have been made the basis for the decision which affected 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 members of the Enquiry Committee were competent persons and that there is no illegality which warrants interference of the Court.
8. 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 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 correct to say that the University had acted on non-existent rule for ordering revaluation. Ordinance 146 is comprehensive enough to include revaluation 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 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 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.
Alert