Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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