Holding

An application for re‑evaluation is valid if filed within 20 days of the later of the result declaration or the dispatch of the detailed marks card, and the appellant must be treated as a regular student.

Summary

Ms. S. Janani, a B.Sc. Home Science student, failed her April 2000 examination and applied for re‑evaluation within 20 days of the result but without the original detailed marks card (DMC). The university rejected the application, and after receiving the DMC on 6 Nov 2000 she re‑applied on 8 Nov 2000, was re‑evaluated and declared passed on 20 Jan 2001. The university still denied her admission, citing an inordinate delay, and the High Court dismissed her writ petition, holding the re‑evaluation application was out of time. The Supreme Court held that the statutory provision in Section 11(5) of the Kurukshetra University Act, 1986, allows the limitation period to start from whichever of the two events – result declaration or dispatch of the DMC – occurs later, making her second application timely. Consequently, the appellant was to be treated as a regular student, her result declared, and she was directed to seek admission to the next year, with the university’s authority to condone any delay.

Issues considered

Whether an application for re‑evaluation filed within 20 days of the dispatch of the detailed marks card, but after the 20‑day period from result declaration, is valid under Section 11(5) of the Kurukshetra University Act, 1986.
Whether the appellant can be treated as a regular student and be admitted to the subsequent year despite the alleged delay.

Subjects

re‑evaluationuniversity statuteslimitation periodhigher educationstudent admissionprocedural fairnessKurukshetra University Act

Judgment

SHAUN! A
v.

) KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANR.

JANUARY 18, 2002

[R.C. LAHOTI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] B

Kurukshetra University Act 1986:

Sec.11(5)-0rdinance JV of University Calendar-Vol.11 Clause 18-
Applicability of-Re-evaluation application can be submitted within 20 days C
of the declaration of the result or within 20 days of the despatch of the
detailed marks card by the University, whichever is later-Applicant can take
advantage of extended period of limitation calculated from one of the two
events marking commencement oflimitation, whichever occurs later-Applicant
cannot be faulted for the delay on the part of University in declaring the D
result, despatching the detailed marks card and re-evaluating the answer
books.

Petitioner/appellant appeared in B.Sc. (Home Science) Part-I
- .• examination conducted by Respondent University, held in the month of
April, 2000 and was declared failed. She applied for re-evaluation. E
However, University rejected the application for want of original detailed
marks card. Subsequently, on receipt of detailed marks card on 6.11.2000,
she again submitted re-evaluation application enclosing original detailed
marks card therewith. On re-evaluation, she was declared passed having
secured 56% marks and received the result on 20.1.2001 but denied
admission in B.Sc. second year on the ground of inordinate delay. She F
moved High Court by filing a writ petition. High Court issued rule nisi
and directed the respondent-University, by an interim order to grant her
provisional admission. She was allowed to attend classes regularly but she
was allowed to appear in the examination as a private candidate and her
result was not declared. She moved an application in the pending writ G
petition fer declaring her result. High Court dismissed the writ petition
on the ground of submission of re-evaluation application beyond the period
of limitation provided in Sec. 11(5) of the Kurukshetra University Act,
1986. Hence this appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
347
H

.
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] I S.C.R.

A HELD : 1.1. An application for re-evaluation to be valid has to be
accompanied by original detailed marks card and the full fee, and

B
submitted in the University Officer either within 20 days of the date of
the declaration of result' or within 20 days of the date of despatch of the
detailed marks card by the University Office whichever is later. The
relevant clause itself provides for an extended period of limitation available
(
to an applicant by permitting him to take advantage of one of the two
events marking commencement of limitation, whichever occurs later. The
appellant was, therefore, justified in making a prayer for re-evaluation
within 20 days of the despatch of the detailed marks card. The appellant
cannot be faulted for the delay on the part of the University in declaring
C the result, despatching the detailed marks card and re-evaluating the
appellant's answer books. The appellant has taken all the steps promptly
and there has not been any delay, remissness or laches on the part of the
appellant in taking any steps either in approaching the respondent or the
High Court. (350-E-H(

D 1.2. The appellant should be treated as a regular student of B.Sc.
(H.Sc.) Part II and her result should also be declared treating her as a
regular student. The appellant shall apply to the Vice-Chancellor/
Competent Authority of the University, for admission in B.Sc. (H.Sc.) Pt.
Ill course of study and invoking power if available under the Act, ~. -
E Ordinance or statutes governing the University to condone delay in seeking
admission. Else the appellant shall be entitled to admission in the Pt. Ill
of the said course, commencing in the next session. (351-C; G(

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 544 of
2002.
F ,
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.2001 of the Punjab and ,, ""
Haryana High Court in C.W. No. 1546 of 2001.

Nidhesh Gupta, Naveen Singh for Ms. S. Janani for the Appellant.

G Neeraj Kumar Jain, Aditya Kumar Choudhary and Bharat Singh for
U.S. Prasad for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J. The petitioner, appeared in B.Sc. (Home Science)
H Part-I examination conducted by Kurukshetra University, the respondent No. I,
SHALINI v. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 349
which was held in the month of April, 2000, as a regular student of Govt. A
College, Panchkula, the respondent No. 2. On 7.8.2000, the result was declared
) and the petitioner was declared 'failed'. A provisional detailed marks card,
dispatched by the university to the college, was received by the college on
20.8.2000 and collected by the petitioner on 21.8.2000. On 13.9.2000, the
petitioner applied for re-evaluation. It was rejected on the ground that the
application for re-evaluation was made beyond the time prescribed therefor.
B
The petitioner sought for a reconsideration of the rejection but the university
vide its communication dated 3.11.2000 informed the petitioner that not only
the application was received late but the prayer for re-evaluation was not
entertainable because the petitioner's original detailed marks card ('DMC',

~
.#-- for short) was not received uptill then. c
Detailed marks card issued by the university reached the college on
6.11.2000 and collected by the petitioner on the same day. Once again, on
8.11.2000, the petitioner submitted re-evaluation application accompanied by
original detailed marks card now available with the petitioner. The application
was entertained by the respondents. The university took about two months' D
time for completing th8 process of re-evaluation and vide communication
dated 17 .1.200 I, received by the petitioner on 20.1.200 I, the petitioner was
-~' declared 'pass' having secured 56% marks. On 22.1.2001 the petitioner applied
to the Principal of the college for giving her admission in B.Sc. Pt.II class
which was refused on the ground of inordinate delay on the part of the E
petitioner in seeking admission. On the same day the petitioner approached
the Vice-Chancellor of the university also but her prayer met with a summary
!rejection only.

...., Having lost all hopes of redressal of her grievance by the respondents,
... the petitioner approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh F
by filing a writ petition. On 1.2.200 I, the High Court issued rule nisi and also
directed the respondents, by an interim order, to grant provisional admission
to the petitioner subject to further orders of the court. The petitioner
commenced her course of study taking the classes regularly ever since the
date of her admission under the orders of the Court. The respondent allowed
G
her to appear in the examination but only as a private candidate. However,
her result was not declared. She moved an application in her pending writ
...
Cl
petition soliciting interim direction of the High Court to the respondents for
declaring her result. The High Court took up the application for consideration
on 14.9.2001 but disposed of the writ petition itself by dismissing the same
forming an opinion that there was no merit in the petition on the ground that H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) I S.C.R.

A the application for re-evaluation was submitted neither within 20 days of the
publication of the result nor within 20 days of the dispatch of the detailed
marks card. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, this petition
seeking special leave to appeal has been filed.

Leave granted.
B
The relevant part of Clause 18 of Ordinance IV of the University
Calendar-Vol.II, framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 11 (5) of
the Kurukshetra University Act, 1986 reads as under:-

"18.1 A candidate for examination in theory papers will be allowed
c to have the answer books in theory papers re-evaluated on submission
of applications on the prescribed form accompanied by the original
detailed marks card and the re-evaluation fee within 20 days of the
date of declaration of the result of the particular examination or within
20 days of the date of dispatch of the detailed marks card by the
D University office whichever is later."

xxx xxx xxx xxx

A bare reading of the abovesaid provision shows the error committed
by the High Court. An application for re-evaluation to be valid has to be (i)
E accompanied by original detailed marks card and the full fee, and (ii) delivered
in university office either within 20 days of the date of the declaration of the
result or within 20 days of the date of dispatch of the detailed marks card by
the university office, whichever is later. Earlier the application moved by the
appellant was accompanied by provisional marks card. The stand taken by
the university in its communication dated 3.11.2000 itself shows that in the
F absence of original DMC, the university was not prepared to treat the
appellant's prayer for re-evaluation entertainable. In any case the relevant
clause itself provides for an extended period of limitation available to an
applicant by permitting him to take advantage of one of the two events
marking commencement of limitation whichever occurs later. The appellant
G was, therefore, justified in making a prayer for re-evaluation within 20 days
of the dispatch of the detailed marks card. Such application being a valid
application and filed within the period of limitation (in fact, within two days)
could not have been declined by the university. The appellant cannot be
faulted for the delay on the part of the university in declaring the result,
despatching the DMC and re-evaluating the appellant's answer books. The
H appellant has taken all the steps promptly and in the facts and circumstances
SHALINI v. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 351
of the case we cannot fonn an opinion, evenprimafacie, that there has been A
any delay, remissness or !aches on the part of the appellant in taking any step
either in approaching the respondents or the High Court. We are told that the
result of B.Sc. (H.Sc.) Part II is yet to be declared officially by the respondents
and for want of such result being declared, the appellant has not been allowed
admission in B.Sc.(H. Sc.) Part III.
B
Unhesitatingly we are of the opinion that the appellant should be treated
as a regular student of B.Sc. (H.Sc.) Part II and her result should also be
declared treating her as a regular student. However, the difficulty arises in
allowing her admission in B.Sc. (H.Sc.) Part Ill course of study as a regular
student. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that major C
part of the educational year is over, the appellant has not attended the lectures,
not taken the practicals and there will be shortage of attendance which cannot
be condone or regularized. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the appellant should not be made to suffer for no
fault of hers and the situation created either by the respondents or by the time
lost in litigation. He further submitted that the Vice-Chancellor of the university D
has power to condone the delay and take an appropriate decision suited to the
circumstances of an individual case so as to remove injustice done to an
individual student. However, no specific provision in this regard or any
precedent has been brought to our notice by either of the parties.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that E
the following directions would meet the ends of justice:-

(I) the appellant shall be treated as a regular student of B.Sc. (H.Sc.)
Pt.II course of study and the result of her examination shall be
declared forthwith;
F
(2) the appellant shall apply to the Vice Chancellor of the university
or any other authority competent in this behalf seeking admission
in B.Sc. (H.Sc.) Pt.III course of study and invoking power, if
there be any under the act, ordinance or statutes governing the
university, to condone the delay in seeking admission. Else the
appellant shall be entitled to admission in B.Sc.(H.Sc.) Pt.III G
course of study commencing in the next session.
We order accordingly and dispose of the appeal in the terms abovesaid.
No order as to the costs.

S.K.S. Appeal disposed of. H