Dishonest Intent Must Be From Inception For Criminality: Supreme Court Quashes Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust FIR 'Cannot Blow Hot And Cold': Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance, Citing Plaintiffs' Inconsistent Conduct & Failure To Prove Continuous Readiness Wife's Residence In Another District For Child's Schooling Cannot Be Sole Ground To Transfer Matrimonial Case: Allahabad High Court Land Acquisition Lapses If Mandatory 80% Compensation Not Paid Before Taking 'Advance Possession' Under Urgency Clause: Bombay High Court Mere Designation As Director Insufficient For Vicarious Liability Under Section 141 NI Act Without Specific Averments: Calcutta High Court Dissatisfaction With Court's Reasoning Or Desire For Elaborate Discussion Not A Ground For Review: Delhi High Court Litigant Pursuing Review Petition Bona Fide Cannot Be Penalised With Limitation Bar For Subsequent Appeal: Delhi High Court Executing Court Not Required To Adjudicate Third-Party Objections Like A Regular Civil Suit, Summary Inquiry Sufficient: Gujarat High Court Karnataka High Court Allows Students To Submit 2017-18 SC Certificates For CET-2026 Registration, Directs KEA To Accommodate Corrections Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Transferred Merely Because Complainant Finds It Difficult To Attend: Kerala High Court No Vested Right For Advocates To Demand Listing Of Cases Ahead Of Older Litigations: Madras High Court Benami Defense Unavailable In Suits Instituted After 1988 Act; Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Altered By Oral Evidence: MP High Court Property Sale During Pendency Of Suit Is Subservient To Final Outcome, Void Decree Must Be Challenged In Competent Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court SC/ST Employees Can Claim Consequential Seniority For Subsequent Promotions Against Unreserved Posts: Telangana High Court Section 37 NDPS Rigours Pale Into Oblivion Against Article 21 During Long Custody; Disclosure Of Co-Accused Is Weak Evidence: Punjab & Haryana HC

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