# Priti Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 898
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-03-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64991 of 2013
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/priti-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43001
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Educationpetitioner through out meritorious studentright from High School to B.A. Part-I and IIin Part III in Sanskrit-I and II paper
secured 65% marks but in III paper only
34 marks-on request of scrutiny-Writ Court
directed to get copy under R.T.I.-and after
fight
in
contempt-proceeding-university
came with case answer sheet weeded outdirection to award average marks issued.

Held: Para-17
In peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, in my view, the end of justice would
be met if a direction is issued to the
University to award average marks to the
petitioner in IIIrd Paper of Sanskrit in
which she has been awarded only 34
marks. Accordingly a direction is issued
upon the University to award average
marks to the petitioner in the IIIrd Paper of
Sanskrit within two months from the date
of communication of this order.

Case Law discussed:
(2011) 8 SCC 497); (2009) 1 SCC 599.

## Text

898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Financial Institution Act, 1993 and
recovery proceedings against them can be
taken under this Act.

(d) Recovery proceedings can neither
be initiated against the principal borrower
nor against the guarantor under the UP
Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act,
1972 if the debt is more than 10 lakhs;
recovery proceedings can only be initiated
under the 1993 Act.

24. In view of our conclusion the writ
petition
is
allowed.
The
recovery
proceedings against the petitioner under UP
Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act,
1972 are quashed. It would be open to the
respondents to initiate recovery proceedings
in accordance with law. Petition allowed."

16. From the discussions aforesaid,
it is clear that the recovery in the present
case since is for an amount exceeding
Rs.10 lacs, therefore, it could be resorted
to only under the provisions of the Act
1993 or the enactment protected by virtue
of section 34(2) therein, which includes
the 1951 Act, but omits the 1972 Act. The
impugned recovery certificate issued
under the 1972 Act, therefore, is contrary
to
law
and
cannot
be
sustained.
Consequently, the writ petition succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned recovery
proceedings pursuant to recovery citation
dated 14.10.2010 initiated under the 1972
Act are set aside. However, it will be open
for the respondent- corporation to proceed
in accordance with law under the Act
1993 or State Financial Corporation Act,
1951, which may be available to it.

17. Subject to the aforesaid
observations made, the writ petition is
allowed. No order is passed as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64991 of 2013

Priti Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ganesh Shankar Srivastava
Sri R.D. Kishore

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vivek Varma

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Educationpetitioner through out meritorious studentright from High School to B.A. Part-I and IIin Part III in Sanskrit-I and II paper
secured 65% marks but in III paper only
34 marks-on request of scrutiny-Writ Court
directed to get copy under R.T.I.-and after
fight
in
contempt-proceeding-university
came with case answer sheet weeded outdirection to award average marks issued.

Held: Para-17
In peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, in my view, the end of justice would
be met if a direction is issued to the
University to award average marks to the
petitioner in IIIrd Paper of Sanskrit in
which she has been awarded only 34
marks. Accordingly a direction is issued
upon the University to award average
marks to the petitioner in the IIIrd Paper of
Sanskrit within two months from the date
of communication of this order.

Case Law discussed:
(2011) 8 SCC 497); (2009) 1 SCC 599.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh
Baghel, J.)
2 All]. Priti Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
899

1. The petitioner is a brilliant
student. She passed her High School and
Intermediate with first division marks,
and in B.A. Part-I & II also she secured
first division marks. She has preferred this
writ petition for issuance of a writ of
certiorari for quashing the order dated
03.07.2013 passed by respondent no. 3,
Examination Controller, Mahatma Gandhi
Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi, whereby in
response to her application under Right to
Information Act, 2005 she was informed
that her answer script of Sanskrit-III paper
has been weeded out.

2. The essential facts are; the
petitioner was a student of B.A. in Swami
Ramnarayanacharya
Mahila
Mahavidyalaya, Belthara Road, Ballia
(for short, "the College"). The said
College is affiliated with Mahatma
Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi (for
short, "the University"). The University is
governed under the provisions of U.P.
State Universities Act, 1973 and it has its
First Statutes and Ordinance, which
regulate the affairs of the University and
its affiliated Colleges.

3. It is stated that the petitioner has a
brilliant academic record. She passed her
High School with 68% marks and
Intermediate with 74% marks. She
appeared in B.A. Part-I as a regular
student in the year 2010 and secured
64.50% marks. In B.A. Part-II also she
secured 62.16% marks. In B.A. Final
year, she selected two subjects; Home
Science & Sanskrit; and there were three
papers
in
Sanskrit.
The
petitioner
appeared in B.A. Final year examinations
in 2012 and in IIIrd Paper of Sanskrit she
had taken extra two additional answer
scripts and solved all the questions.
However, when the result was declared, to
the utter surprise of the petitioner, she had
been shown only 34 marks awarded in the
third paper of Sanskrit. In first and second
paper she had secured more than 60%
marks and only in third paper she had got
34 marks.

4. Dissatisfied with her marks in
Sanskrit (IIIrd Paper), the petitioner made
a request to the Principal of the Institution
on 09 August, 2012 for re-evaluation of
her answer book of Sanskrit (IIIrd Paper).
A copy of the said application has been
appended to the writ petition as annexure5. When her grievance was not attended
she preferred a Writ Petition bearing no.
55700 of 2012 (Priti Sharma v. State of
U.P. & Others) in this Court. On 19
October 2012 the said writ petition was
disposed of with the liberty to the
petitioner to approach the University
under Right to Information Act, 2005 and
the University was directed to consider
the petitioner's request in the light of law
laid down by the Supreme Court in CBSE
v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011)8) SCC
497.

5. It is stated that in compliance of
the order of this Court, the petitioner
submitted her representation on 01
November 2012. The said application
failed to elicit any response from the
University.

6. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a
contempt application being Contempt
Application (Civil) No. 2571 of 2013
(Priti Sharma v. Sahab Lal Maurya,
Examination Controller, M.G. Kashi
Vidya). On 21 May, 2013 this Court
disposed of the contempt application
giving last opportunity to the University
to comply the order of this Court dated 19
October, 2012 passed in Writ Petition No.
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
55700 of 2012 within a period of six
weeks.

7. In compliance of the order passed
in the contempt application, the respondent
University has passed the impugned order
dated 03 July, 2013 and has rejected
petitioner's application on the ground that in
pursuance
of
the
decision
of
the
Examination Committee the application for
the xerox copy of the answer script becomes
time barred (90 days from the date of
declaration of the result). The petitioner's
application was rejected being time barred,
and consequently the University refused to
provide copy of the answer script of the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the
University the petitioner has preferred this
writ petition.

8. On 05 December, 2013 the Court
has asked the learned Counsel for the
University to seek instruction whether
petitioner's answer script of Sanskrit, IIIrd
Paper, B.A. (Regular) has been weeded
out or not. On 18 December, 2013 learned
Counsel for the University informed the
Court that petitioner's answer-script has
been weeded out. The Court directed the
University to file an affidavit of a
responsible officer of the University. In
compliance thereof the University has
filed a counter affidavit sworn by the
Deputy Registrar, wherein it is stated that
petitioner's answer script of Sanskrit (IIIrd
Paper) has been weeded out.

9. I have heard Sri Ganesh Shankar
Srivastava, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Vivek Varma, learned
Counsel for the University.

10. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that it is a practice of
the various Universities to award general
marks in such a situation. His submission
that average marks can be awarded may
have merit acceptance.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner had moved an
application to the Principal of the College
within 90 days. The petitioner is a girl
student and is living in a rural area of District
Ballia, there was no negligence or latches on
her part. She had made a representation to
the University and thereafter she has
preferred writ petition earlier as well as a
Contempt Application. Learned Counsel for
the petitioner further submits that the
University has failed to point out any
provision under its Statutes or Ordinance,
wherein it is provided that the copy of
answer script would not be provided to a
candidate after 90 days. If such resolution
has been passed by the Examination
Committee, it has not been brought on the
record. Lastly he urged that the petitioner has
secured 69 marks in Sanskrit (First Paper)
and 64 marks in Second Paper, her answer
script of third paper has not been properly
evaluated as only 34 marks have been
awarded to her.

12. Sri Vivek Varma, learned Counsel
for
the
University
submits
that
the
Examination Committee of the University
has taken a resolution that the answer-scripts
of the candidates are weeded out after 90
days. Therefore, it is not possible to reevaluate the answer script of the petitoner.
He has also relied on a judgment of this
Court in Jagdish Kumar v. State of U.P. &
Others passed in Writ-C No. 29207 of 2013.
Against the said order, the Special Appeal
has been rejected.

13. I have heard learned Counsel for
the parties and considered their respective
submissions.
2 All]. Priti Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
901

14. Ordinarily this Court does not
interfere in the matter of result of the
candidates where there is no provision of
re-evaluation in the Statutes or the Rules
but the Supreme Court in Sahiti and
others
v.
Chancellor,
Dr.
N.T.R.
University of Health Science and others,
(2009) 1 SCC 599, has held that even in
the case where there is no rule of reevaluation, the High Court can issue a
direction for re-evaluation of the answer
scripts. The Supreme Court has further
held that if there is no provision for reevaluation, there is more responsibility on
the examiners to evaluate the answer
scripts with responsibility and with due
care. Paragraph Nos. 32 & 37 of the said
judgment read as under;

"32. The plea that there is absence of
specific provision enabling the ViceChancellor to order re-evaluation of the
answer scripts and, therefore, the judgment
impugned should not be interfered with,
cannot be accepted. Re-evaluation of answer
scripts in the absence of specific provision is
perfectly legal and permissible. In such
cases, what the court should consider is
whether the decision of the educational
authority is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide
and whether the decision contravenes any
statutory or binding rule or ordinance and in
doing so, the court should show due regard
to the opinion expressed by the authority.

37. Award of marks by an examiner
has to be fair and considering the fact that
re-evaluation is not permissible under the
Statutes at the instance of the candidate,
the examiner has to be careful, cautious
and has the duty to ensure that the
answers
are
properly
evaluated.
Therefore, where the authorities find that
award of marks by an examiner is not fair
or that the examiner was not careful in
evaluating
the
answer
scripts,
reevaluation may be found necessary."

15. In the present case the petitioner
has
passed
her
High
School
and
Intermediate
Examinations
with
first
division marks and she has also passed her
B.A. Part-I and II with the same University
with first division marks. In the Ist and IInd
Papers of Sanskrit also the petitioner has
secured more than 60% marks but only in
the third paper she has got 34 marks.

16. The grievance of the petitioner is
genuine, she has approached this Court
for a direction upon the University to
produce her answer script. The University
is taking shelter of its resolution of the
Examination Committee that after 90 days
it weeds out the answer script of the
candidates. In the present case the result
was declared on 30 June 2012 and the
petitioner moved an application on 09
August, 2012 within 90 days. She had
also approached this Court on 17 October,
2012 that is the reasonable time when her
grievance was not attended.

17. In peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case, in my view, the end of justice
would be met if a direction is issued to the
University to award average marks to the
petitioner in IIIrd Paper of Sanskrit in which
she has been awarded only 34 marks.
Accordingly a direction is issued upon the
University to award average marks to the
petitioner in the IIIrd Paper of Sanskrit
within two months from the date of
communication of this order.

18. The writ petition is, accordingly,
disposed of.

19. No order as to costs.
--------
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65532 of 2011

Ram Veer Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Sri Abhitab Kumar
Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri N.L. Pandey, Sri Anil Kumar

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Election of
committee of Management in the year
2011-Respondent-4 permitted those 101
member alleged to be enrolled 2004-05Asst. Registrar allowed only 42 validly
elected members to participate in the year
2008-Respondent
-4
never
raised
objection before Asst. Registrar-rather the
petition filed by Respondent-4 questioning
election 08 also dismissed with liberty to
filed
civil
suit-as
per
scheme
of
administration election scheduled to be
held
in
the
year
2011-Respondent-4
allowed those 101 members to participatewhich questioned by the petition-held
bonafide dispute was there-DIOS has no
power
to
adjudicate
the
validity
of
member-except the regional committeeorder impugned by DIOS set a side-with
followup direction.

Held: Para-17
Relevant it would be to mention that the
State
Government
has
issued
a
Government
Order
dated
19th
December,
2000,
which
has
been
modified
on
20th
October,
2008
(annexure-14 to the writ petition), which
provides that if the District Inspector of
Schools has any difficulty, the matter
shall be referred to the Regional Level
Committee. From a perusal of the
Government Order dated 20th October,
2008 it brings out that the District
Inspector of Schools can attest the
signature within a week of the election
of the Committee of Management where
there is no dispute in respect of the
election or the electoral college, but if
there is any dispute, then the District
Inspector of Schools should refer the
matter to the Regional Level Committee.
The District Inspector of Schools, in my
view, has no jurisdiction to decide the
electoral college or the validity of the
election, if any objection is filed before
him raising a bona fide dispute. In the
present case, the electoral college was
determined by the Assistant Registrar in
compliance with the order of this Court
dated 05th August, 2005 passed in the
special
appeals,
as
referred
above.
Therefore, there was a bona fide dispute
with regard to validity of participation of
101 members, who were admittedly
enrolled in the year 2004-05 i.e. before
the order was passed by the Assistant
Registrar. It was also admitted fact that
the newly enrolled 101 members were
not allowed to participate in the election
of 2008. Thus, in view of the aforesaid
facts, it was crystal clear that there was
a bona fide and genuine dispute raised
by the life members which ought to have
been decided by the Regional Level
Committee and not by the District
Inspector of Schools. From a perusal of
the impugned order of the District
Inspector of Schools it is established
that
he
has
travelled
beyond
his
jurisdiction as he has gone into the
validity of enrollment of 101 members.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)

1. This writ petition has been
preferred by 5 life members of a society,
namely, Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Kapsarh,
Sardhana District Meerut, for quashing of
the order dated 31st October, 2011 passed