Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC

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