Himendra Chandra Das v. The Gauhati University And Others Opposite Party.

Sarjoo Prosad, C.J:— This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of Mandamus against the respondents commanding them to declare or publish in an appropriate manner that the petitioner has passed the Bachelor of Science in Agriculture Examination of the Gauhati University held in 1952. The respondents' to the application are (1) the Gauhati University which, under Section 3(2) of the Gauhati University Act (Assam Act XVI of 1947) is a juristic body capable of suing and being sued in its own name; (2) the Vice-chancellor of the University; (3) The Registrar and (4) the Executive Council of the University.

2. The facts giving rise to this application are simple. The petitioner was a student of the Jorhat Agricultural College and appeared in the Bachelor of Science Examination in Agriculture for the year 1952 as an examinee, his number being “Roll. Jor. No. ???. According to the Mark Sheet furnished by the University, which is appended to the petition and which has not been challenged, the petitioner secured 1172 marks out of an aggregate of 2400 marks in the Examination; that is to say, he secured in the aggregate 48.8 per cent, marks, and he got more than 30 per cent, marks in each subject. It appears, however, that in one of the papers of “Genetics etc.”, in Agricultural Botany, which consisted of two theoretical papers: ‘plant physiology’ and ‘genetics etc.’, the petitioner secured only 28 marks out of 100, but counting the marks in the two papers together, he secured more than 30 per cent, marks even in ‘Agricultural Botany”. The contention of the petitioner is that according to the rules and regulations of the University, he should have been declared to have passed the University Examination in Bachelor of Science (Agri.) & to have been placed in the Second Class. The results of the Examination were published in August 1952, but the Respondents did not announce the name of the petitioner as a successful candidate in that examination. He accordingly submits that the action of the respondents was wholly unwarranted; that on the marks obtained by him at the said examination he was entitled to a declaration that he had passed the said examination and secured a Second Class; that the conduct of the respondents has deprived the petitioner of valuable rights and is likely to jeopardise his future career. He states that he wrote to the authorities concerned requesting them to publish the result, but they refused to do so and they took up the attitude, in contravention of the rules and regulations, that each paper in the subject of Agricultural Botany is a subject by itself and, as such the petitioner could not be said to have passed the Examination in question.

3. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the petitioner is justified in claiming, as a matter of right, that he should have been declared to have passed the University examination in question on the marks obtained by him and to have been placed in the Second Class, as provided in the rules and regulations of the University.

4. Section 3 of the Act deals with the constitution of the University. The Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the members of the court, the Executive Council and the Academic Council constitute the University. Under S. 5(b) of the Act, the University is authorised to hold examinations and to grant to and confer Degrees and other academic distinctions on persons who have passed a course of study in or prescribed by the University, and according to S. 6 of the Act, all recognised teaching in connection with the University courses are to be conducted under the control of the Academic Council by teachers of the University in accordance with a syllabus prescribed by the regulations. Sections 12 and 13 of the Act deal with the constitution of the Executive Council and the powers and duties of that Council, and S. 14 deals with the functions of the Academic Council, which is to advise the Executive Council on all academic matters.

5. The constitution of the Academic Council and terms of office of its members, other than ex-officio members, were to be prescribed by statutes. Section 15 of the Act defines the various Faculties of the University including the Faculty ??? Agriculture, and also prescribes that there shall be a Dean of each Faculty who shall be responsible for the due observance of the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations relating to the Faculty. Section 25 of the Act gives powers to the University authorities to make Regulations consistent with the Act, the statutes and the Ordinances. On this authority, Regulations have been framed prescribing me various courses of study.

6. Chapter XXIII of the Gauhati University Calendar, at page 189, gives the course of study for the Bachelor of Science Examination in Agriculture. It provides, amongst others, that the said Examination shall be held once a year at Jorhat, and no candidate shall be admitted to this Examination unless he has prosecuted a regular course of study for two academic years in a recognised Agricultural College. Rule 5 of the rules in that Chapter is very material. It says that candidates shall be examined in the following subjects:

Theoretical. Marks. Practical. Marks. Agronomy One paper One paper One paper One paper One paper 100 50 Agricultural Botany One paper One paper 100 100 One paper One paper 50 100 Agricultural Chemistry One paper One paper 100 110 One paper 100 Dairy Farming and Dairying One paper … … 100 One paper 100 Entomology One paper … … 100 One paper 100 Plant Pathology One paper … … 100 One paper 100 Bacteriology One paper … … 50 One paper 50 Agricultural Engineering One paper … … 100 One paper 100 Horticulture One paper … … 100 One paper 100 Statistics One paper … … 100 One paper 50 Agricultural Economics One paper … … 100

7. In order to pass the B.Sc Examination in Agriculture, a candidate must pass in all the subjects by obtaining 30 per cent, or more marks in the theoretical papers and 40 per cent, or more marks in the practicals.

8. In order to get a First Class, a candidate must obtain in the aggregate 60 per cent, or more marks; in order to get a Second Class, 45 per cent. Candidates obtaining 35 per cent, or more marks but less than 45 per cent, will be declared to have passed the Examination.

9. The contention of the petitioner is that all that the rules require is that he should obtain 30 per cent, or more marks in the theoretical papers in all the subjects. He points out that there are eleven subjects provided for the Examination, one of them being Agricultural Botany. One paper in Agricultural Botany consisting of 100 marks in ‘Plant physiology’ and the other paper, consisting of 100 marks, in ‘Genetics, Crop-breeding, and Botany of Crop Plants’. The rule provides that in order to pass the Examination, a candidate must pass in all the subjects by obtaining 30 per cent, or more marks in the theoretical papers. In the present case, the petitioner obtained 51 out of 100 in the paper on Plant physiology, and 28 out of 100 in Genetics, Crop-breeding, Botany of Crop Plants. He, therefore, obtained 79 marks out of 200 in the subject of Agricultural Botany (theoretical), and this is more than 30 per cent, marks, as required by the rule. There is no question that in all other subjects he had obtained the required marks to enable him to pass the Examination.

10. On behalf of the University, it has been represented in the counter affidavit solemnly affirmed by the Registrar of the University that such paper provided in rule 5, above quoted, is a subject, by itself; in other words, Agricultural Botany, according to the Registrar of the University, is not a subject by itself, but that it consists of two subjects (1) Plant Physiology and (2) Genetics, Crop-breeding, Botany of Crop plants. The assertion that there are fifteen subjects for the Examination in my opinion, is futile & does not deserve any serious notice. I am glad to say that the learned Advocate General did not consider it worth while to support this assertion in the counter affidavit that the subjects prescribed in the course of study for this Examination do not consist merely of eleven papers, but of fifteen papers, each paper being a subject, by itself. The arrangement of the subjects in Rule 5 itself shows that there are only eleven subjects for that Examination.

11. The syllabus for the examination which is given at page 189 of the University Calendar shows the same thing. It is Agricultural Botany which is shown as a subject, and not the two papers on Plant physiology and Genetics etc. This view is also confirmed by Chapter XXV of the Regulations which deals with the minimum number of Page: 67lectures to be delivered for the University Examinations. It shows at page 206 of the Calendar that there are eleven subjects for this examination, Botany being one of them, prescribing 100 (one hundred) lectures in the third and another 100 (one hundred) lectures in the Fourth year in that subject. The text-books prescribed in Chapter XLI of the University Calendar at page 366 also show that Agricultural Botany is a subject by itself, for which various books have been recommended covering Plant Physiology and Genetics etc., and Chapter XLII also of the Calendar, at page 371, which gives a brief account of the Assam Agricultural college, Jorhat, and records the subjects to be taught in the B.Sc (Agri.) course, mentions Agricultural Botany as a subject along with the other subjects. In the face of all these materials, as given in the University Calendar itself, a defence of that kind could not be entertained and should have been scrupulously avoided by a body of such undoubted importance and respectability as the Gauhati University. The learned Advocate General, therefore, rightly abandoned the contention.

12. It was, however, submitted by him that Rule 5 of Chapter XXIII, which I have quoted above, meant that the candidate should obtain 30 per cent, marks in ‘each paper’ of a subject in order to succeed at the examination. The underline (here in ‘’) is mine. On first impression, the language of the Rule does lend some colour to this interpretation, but an examination of other allied rules on the point as gathered from the Calendar itself, dispels all doubts and shows that this interpretation was not open to the University. It appears that wherever the intention was that the candidate should secure 30 per cent, marks in each paper, the rule has specifically said so, and where it has not so provided, it means that the candidate was required only to obtain 30 per cent, marks in the subject. Therefore, if on casting up the marks obtained in each paper, the candidate obtained 30 per cent, or more marks in the subject, he should be declared to have passed in that subject.

13. I may, for instance, refer to Chapter III of the University Calendar, which provides for the Bachelor of Arts, examination. Rules 2 and 3 in that Chapter say that a candidate may take the pass Course in four subjects, and each subject in the pass Course, English being one of those, shall consist of three papers, each paper having 100 (one hundred) marks. And then Rule 6 provides that a candidate must obtain, in order to pass the B.A Examination in the Pass Course; in English 100 marks. In other words if in all the papers the candidate is able to get 100 marks, he will be declared to have passed. On these Rules, it does not appear to be necessary that he should obtain the minimum percentage of marks in each paper. This is on the same line as the Rule with which we are concerned in the present case. Another instance is to be found in Rule 8 of Chapter XVI at p. 138 of the Calendar, dealing with Bachelor of Teaching Examination. It is provided there that in order to pass, a candidate must obtain 40 per cent, of the marks in ‘each paper’ in Geography.

14. Similarly, in Rule 7 of Chapter XVII, which refers to Teachers' Training Certificate Course in Geography, at page 154, of the Syllabus, it is provided “In order to pass, a candidate must secure 36 per cent, of the marks in ‘each of the theoretical papers’.” Rule 6 of Chapter XXII at page 181, which deals with Intermediate Examination in Agricultural Science, also provides that

“in order to pass the Intermediate Examination in Agricultural Science, a candidate must obtain 20 per cent, or more marks ‘in each theoretical paper’.”

15. The underline (here in ‘’) are all mine. Therefore, it seems to me that wherever the Regulations wanted that the candidate should obtain a minimum percentage of marks in ‘each paper’ in order to pass a particular examination, it is specifically so provided. If the intention were the same in the present case, then the language of Rule 5 of Chapter XXIII would have been in similar terms. Here the Rule clearly emphasises Upon a certain percentage of marks in the subject, and not in any particular paper. The language of the Rule would otherwise have been:

“In order to pass the B.Sc Examination in Agriculture, a candidate must pass in all the subjects by obtaining 30 per cent, or more marks in ‘each theoretical paper’ etc.”

16. If this is the true interpretation of the Rule, then the mere fact that in some of the University forms for the Examination a different intention, could be spelled out, is of no consequence at all. I am, therefore, unable to entertain the contention that in order to pass the examination, the petitioner was required to get 30 per cent, or more marks in ‘each paper’ of the examination.

17. The learned Advocate General suggests that even if two interpretations were possible the authorities of the University having accepted one interpretation, this Court should not interfere with the order merely because the rule was capable of bearing another interpretation also. I have already discussed the true & only reasonable interpretation of the Rule. Any other interpretation was unwarranted in the context. The relevant Rule has to be very strictly construed, specially when it affects valuable rights of the examinees and is likely to jeopardise their career in life. In the present case, if the Rule is strictly interpreted, then there can be no doubt that the petitioner has passed his Bachelor of Science Examination in Agriculture of the Gauhati University and was placed in the Second Class. He was, therefore, entitled to be declared to have passed the Examination on the marks which he obtained, and yet the University refused to announce his name as one of the successful candidates who sat for the Examination. But even if two ways of interpretation were possible, I am unable to see why the authorities of the University should not have taken that view which was in favour of the candidate.

18. No one claims that a University Examination is the surest and most conclusive test of a man's efficiency and integrity; but whatever its practical value may be, there is no doubt that it does provide a person with the hall-mark of academic distinction and is thus an asset to his career. A University degree is at least a pass-port to one's future career in life. Why should the petitioner be deprived of even that advantage when any interpretation of the Rules favours his claim that he should have been deemed to have passed the Examination in question? The University is a Body which acts pro bono publico. It is an institution of very great public service and utility. It is bound to lose much of its efficacy if it seeks to convert itself into an organisation for exacting or enforcing penalties even though the rules provided a way out. It has laid down certain principles, and rules by which the tests or examinations are regulated. Therefore, even if two, views were possible of these rules, it should have unhesitatingly adopted the one which supported Page: 68the claim of the examinee and did not tend to thwart his career in life. Indeed this consideration should have been a guiding factor to the University authorities themselves.

19. In this case, the petitioner had given further proof of his efficiency, if any, by securing marks which entitled him to the distinction of being placed in the Second Class. Where was then the difficulty of conceding to him this credit when the rule was capable of two possible interpretations — one in favour of the candidate and the other against him? But on the view which I have taken in the matter, I do not agree that an interpretation against him could be reasonably adopted, and the conduct of the authorities in not declaring the petitioner to have passed the Examination on the marks obtained, is unauthorised and unjustified.

20. The learned Advocate General has then contended that the petition has become infructuous in view of subsequent events. He points out that the petitioner later appeared at a Compartmental Examination of the University in the subject of Agricultural Botany, in which he obtained 33 per cent, marks in the paper on Genetics, Crop-breeding, etc., and he was, therefore, declared to have passed the Compartmental Examination. It is urged that now that he has already been declared qualified for the said B.Sc Degree in Agriculture, he cannot any further ask this Court for a Mandamus to effectuate the very same purpose, specially when he submitted to the procedure adopted by the University. The petitioner explains that he was compelled by force of circumstances to sit for the Compartmental Examination because of the conduct of the Respondents. He refers in his affidavit in reply to the fact that the Registrar of the University in his letter No. Ex/BA/14/52/5859-5874, dated 13-9-52, addressed to the Principal, Assam Agricultural College, Jorhat, asked the petitioner to appear in the Compartmental Examination in the subject “Agricultural Botany” in both the papers, that is Plant Physiology and Genetics etc., the Programme of which was also sent by the University.

21. But when the petitioner served a pleader's notice on the University, the Registrar wrote to the Principal, under his letter No. Ex/BA/14/52/8093, dated 5-1-52 (perhaps it is a mistake for 1953) that the petitioner was required to appear only in one paper, namely, of Genetics etc., and was “not required to appear in Plant Physiology the other subject under Agricultural Botany”. Evidently this letter was to support the untenable proposition that the paper on Genetics etc., was a subject, by itself, though the earlier letter itself shows that the authorities took the view that the subject was Agricultural Botany consisting of two papers, and not that each paper was a subject by itself. Why the University authorities should have changed their position after the service of a pleader's notice, is something incomprehensible to me. The straight course for the University was to take the attitude that they interpreted the Rule to mean that the candidate must obtain 30 per cent, of marks in each paper to order to be able to pass the examination, and not merely 30 per cent of marks in each subject. Unfortunately a dubious course was adopted.

22. Be that as it may, the fact that the petitioner appeared at the Compartmental Examination and was declared to have passed it does not deprive film of the rights which had accrued to him by virtue of the marks obtained by him at the original B.Sc Examination in Agriculture in 1952. The difference in the results of the two Examinations and their effect upon the value of the Degree obtained by the petitioner are obvious. The result of passing the Compartmental Examination is not the same as when the authorities had declared him to have passed the earlier Examination for that Degree with a place in the Second Class. A Second Class B.Sc Degree in Agriculture has certainly greater academic value than a mere pass degree in the Compartmental Examination. I am, therefore, unable to see how this affects the legal position at all and deprives the petitioner of the right which he had acquired under the first Examination.

23. The learned Advocate General has then contended that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke this extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, because he suppressed certain material facts from the Court when he obtained the Rule nisi on the petition. The material fact which he is alleged to have suppressed is the fact of his having consented to and having actually appeared at the Compartmental Examination aforesaid. It is urged that if this fact has been stated, this Court possibly would not have issued a Rule and the suppression of the fact, therefore, tantamount to a fraud perpetrated upon the Court. Numerous cases have been cited on the point. True it is that if a material fact had been suppressed, the petitioner would forfeit his right to invoke a prerogative writ. But these hard expressions are out of place in this case, and the Court would be loath to favour such an argument unless the facts actually justified it.

24. It is to be remembered that the results of the examination had not been announced at the time when the petitioner had obtained the Rule. His being allowed to sit for only one paper in a particular subject at the Compartmental Examination, when at an earlier stage the authorities themselves wanted him to sit in both the papers in that subject, was itself of doubtful validity. The results of the examination were uncertain; he may have failed or he may have passed. Would the event in any manner affect his legal rights on the marks obtained by him at the previous examination? If it did not, then these subsequent proceedings were irrelevant and need not have been mentioned to the Court at the time of the Rule. For all these reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the Respondents had no valid reason to refuse to declare that the petitioner had passed the B.Sc Examination in Agriculture, 1952, and was placed in the Second Class. On the marks obtained by him and on the authority of the Rules governing the conduct and publication of such Examinations, the Respondents were bound to announce his results accordingly and that not having been done, this application must succeed.

25. The only question which perhaps deserves some notice, although it has not been seriously raised before us on behalf of the respondents, is: whether, in the circumstances of this case, a writ of Mandamus should issue on the University and the other respondents. It goes without saying I that a writ of Mandamus would lie against public bodies compelling them to carry out their duties. There is also no dispute that the University is a public body.

26. Coutts-Trotter, J., in dealing with an application for Mandamus under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, observed in “in the matter of ‘G.A Natesan’, AIR 1918 Mad 763 (A)”, thus:

“The Syndicate is a creature of statute with certain duties imposed upon it by statute and those duties are to be carried out for the benefit of the public at large (see the very wide Page: 69words in the preamble to the Act of Incorporation), & especially for that portion of the public, which desires to utilise the educational advantages of the University. It seems to me too plain for argument that, where a statute appoints a body of persons to carry out purposes of public benefit, the persons constituting such a body ipso facto become holders of a public office within the meaning of the section. It is not disputed that to hold otherwise would be to go contrary to a vast number of English decisions with regard to the writ of mandamus and that it would also give the go by to the principle which, if not expressly enunciated, is underlying numerous decisions of the High Courts, both of Bombay and Calcutta. I am, therefore, of opinion that the Syndicate is a body amenable to the jurisdiction of Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, if the other conditions for that relief are present.”

27. Article 226 of the Constitution is certainly much wider in its scope and amplitude than Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, and the above observations, therefore, apply with greater force to the powers of this Court under the Constitution. There have been cases in the Courts of India also where Judges have not faltered in issuing appropriate writs to University bodies where the justice of the case demanded it. See, for instance, — ‘Dipa Pal… v. University Of Calcutta….’, AIR 1952 Cal 594 (B), ‘S.K Ghose v. Vice-Chancellor, Utkal University’, AIR 1952 Orissa 1 (C), and — ‘Samarendra Prasad v. University of Calcutta’, AIR 1953 Cal 172 (D). In England also, the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus against University authorities in appropriate cases has not been seriously challenged. In the case of ‘King v. Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge’, (1716-49) 93 ER 698 (E), a writ of mandamus was issued against the Cambridge University.

28. In rejecting the objection of the University to the jurisdiction of the Court to issue such a writ, the learned Judges expressed themselves thus:

“It is the glory and happiness of our excellent constitution, that to prevent any injustice to man is to be concluded by the first judgment; but that if he apprehends himself to be aggrieved, he has another Court to which he can resort for relief; for this purpose, the law furnishes him with appeals, with writs of error and false judgment, and lest in this particular case the party should be remediless, it was become absolutely necessary for this Court to require the University to lay the state of their proceedings before us; that if they have erred, the party may have right done him, or if they have acted according to the rules of law, that their acts may be confirmed.”

29. It is indeed unnecessary to discuss this matter further, in view of the express powers vouchsafed under the Constitution.

30. Ordinarily, however, a Court would be most reluctant to interfere with the internal discipline of the University and its autonomous working under the Statute. An august body of such importance is entitled to all the reasonable latitude which its position deserves. I was, therefore, anxious that the authorities themselves would realise their mistake and, would rectify the wrong which they had done to the petitioner; but I understand that in spite of my having given them sufficient opportunity to do so, they have consistently refused to consider the claim of the petitioner. As I have said above, the University is a creature of the Statute and must obey the rules and regulations by which it professes to be bound. If it acts in violation of those rules and thereby adversely affects the rights of others, its conduct is open to question. I have, therefore, no other alternative but to direct that the Rules and Regulation framed by the University should be strictly followed. The conduct of the respondents in the present case cannot be supported for the reasons stated above. I would accordingly order that a writ of mandamus should issue to the Respondents directing them to declare or announce appropriately that the petitioner passed the Bachelor of Science Examination in Agriculture of the Gauhati University in 1952 and was placed in the Second class, and the result of the subsequent Compartmental Examination was infructuous. The petitioner is also entitled to his costs: hearing fee Rs. 100/-.

H. Deka, J.:— I agree.

A/D.H.Z

31. Petition allowed.