Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman

Punjab and Haryana High Court Orders Panjab University to Correct Examination Marks, Awards ₹1 Lakh Compensation for Scaling Down Marks Without Legal Authority

17 March 2025 1:41 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


University's Unlawful Scaling Down of Marks Jeopardizes Student's Career", Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rohan Rana v. Panjab University and Others ruled in favor of a law student whose marks were unjustly reduced by Panjab University, resulting in his failure in the "Land Law and Rent Laws" paper. The court declared the university's action of scaling down the marks from 54 out of 80 to 41 out of 60 as illegal, noting the absence of any legal provision or authority for such reduction. The court directed the university to issue a corrected result and degree to the petitioner and awarded ₹1,00,000 in compensation for the damage caused to the student's academic career.


Rohan Rana, a student of the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Integrated 5-Year Course at Panjab University, failed his "Land Law and Rent Laws" paper in May 2019. He reappeared for the exam in May 2023, securing 54 out of 80 marks, which met the 45% passing requirement. However, the university scaled down his marks to 41 out of 60 based on outdated regulations, causing him to fail again. The university applied a 60:40 marking scheme despite having revised it to an 80:20 ratio in 2022. Rana challenged the result in court, arguing that the university's action lacked any legal basis.


Unlawful Scaling Down of Marks: The court found that the university reduced Rana's marks without any legal authority or proper guideline. The university's administrative staff applied a "past practice" to scale down marks, which the court held was arbitrary and without legal backing.

Regulatory Framework: The court examined the rules applicable to Rana's academic session (2016-17) and subsequent amendments. It concluded that once the university subjected Rana to an exam with an 80:20 ratio, they could not revert to a 60:40 ratio without legal justification.

Violation of Student Rights: Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri emphasized that students' careers cannot be subject to the whims and fancies of university staff. The university’s actions, in this case, were deemed not only illegal but also perverse, as they severely impacted the petitioner's academic progress.

The court quashed the university's result and ordered the issuance of a fresh mark sheet reflecting the actual score of 54 marks. Panjab University was directed to grant the petitioner his law degree and to take corrective measures to prevent similar occurrences. Additionally, the university was ordered to pay ₹1,00,000 in compensation, with the Vice-Chancellor given the liberty to recover the amount from the responsible officials.

This judgment highlights the court's commitment to upholding student rights and ensuring that educational institutions adhere to legal and transparent practices. It reinforces that arbitrary actions by university authorities, which harm students' futures, will not be tolerated.

 

Date of Decision: September 17, 2024
 

Latest Legal News