After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife Res Ipsa Loquitur Not a Substitute for Proof of Negligence: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Fatal Road Accident Case NSA Detention Doesn’t Bar Framing of Charges If Prima Facie Evidence Exists: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Charges in Ajnala Police Station Violence Case Continued Contractual Service Despite Sanctioned Posts Is Unfair Labour Practice: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of ECG Technicians After 15 Years Will Duly Proved Even If Witnesses Forget Details After Eight Years: Madras High Court Validates Bequest, Sets Aside Partition Decree Writ Petition Not Maintainable Where Commercial Appeal Remedy Exists: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petition, Permits Conversion Under Commercial Courts Act Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Cogent, But Caste-Based Offences Demand Specific Intent: Supreme Court Draws Line Between Heinous Crimes and Caste Atrocities Court Must Step into Testator’s Shoes, Not Substitute His Intent: Supreme Court Upholds Will Excluding One Daughter Production of Arbitration Clause is Enough - Not Conduct Mini-Trials on Capacity or Consortium Structure: Supreme Court Title to Property Must Be Proven by Evidence, Not Just Claimed by Deed: Supreme Court Strikes Down Injunction Order Rejecting Police Investigation Is Not Interlocutory Where It Affects Complainant’s Right to Fair Probe in Murder Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Restores Revision in 156(3) Application Rejection Conviction Cannot Rest On Contradictions, Hostility And Conjecture: Supreme Court Acquits Seven Accused In 2010 Village Murder Power to Lower NEET Percentile Lies Only With Centre - States Can’t Dilute NEET by Administrative Letters: Supreme Court Imposed 10 Crore Cost On Private Dental College Identification Without TIP, Electronic Records Without 65B Certificate – Conviction Set Aside: Patna High Court Nothing Inflicts A Deeper Wound On Our Constitutional Culture Than A State Official Running Berserk Regardless Of Human Rights: Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.5 Lakh Interim Compensation Identification Vitiated, Diamonds Not Produced, Last Seen Theory Unreliable: Bombay High Court Acquits Two in 2011 Diamond Courier Murder Dishonour Due to ‘Account Blocked’ Not Attributable to Drawer—No Offence Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Cannot Be Rebutted By Mere Assertions: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction In 32-Year-Old Cheque Bounce Case Accused Cannot Demand Documents During Investigation Merely to Assist in Answering Queries: Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of S.91 CrPC Plea in Bank Fraud Probe Once a Person is a Major, They Are Free to Choose Their Partner – Absence of Marriage No Ground To Deny Protection: Allahabad High Court Connivance Can’t Be Washed Away by Exoneration: P&H High Court Upholds Penalty on Forest Guard Despite Enquiry Clean Chit Disciplinary Authority Cannot Override Enquiry Officer’s Clean Chit Without Hearing the Employee: Madhya Pradesh High Court Remands Termination for Procedural Lapse Appointment Secured by Misstating Marks Is Void Ab Initio; Human Error No Excuse Where Advantage Gained: Allahabad High Court Appeal Maintainable Despite Modified MACT Award — Kerala High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review in Motor Accident Claims Signature Alone Doesn’t Prove Debt: Kerala High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case, Rejects Blanket Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act

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