Legal Progressive (Ex 4)

A letter was written to the Head of the Department of Sociology of Sikkim University by the Controller of Examinations respondent no.3 stating that the fifth convocation for conferment of degrees & awards of medals for the batch of 2017, 2018 and 2019 was going to be held in the first week of November 2019 and that the gold medal in the Master of Arts for the batch of 2017 was to be awarded to respondent No.4. After the petitioner learnt that the respondent no 4 who had secured less than her was being awarded the gold medal, the petitioner immediately approached the authorities with her grievances. She was then informed about the last sentence of Clause 10 of the Regulations on Conduct of Examinations On 25 October 2019, the petitioner wrote to the Registrar, Sikkim University respondent no.2 and requested him to reconsider their decision for the award of gold medal Neither the Sikkim University nor the respondents No. 2 responded. Instead, the gold medal was awarded to the respondent No.4.

The petitioner submits that Clause 10 of the Regulations is ultra vires the Constitution and is unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The decision of the Sikkim University not to award the gold medal to the petitioner is also unreasonable, arbitrary, and unfair, as it failed to consider that the result of a candidate becomes final only after re-evaluation. It is urged that the artificial barrier created between valuation and re-evaluation by Clause 10 of the Regulations do not stand the test of fairness or reasonableness required by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also urged that Clause 10 of the Regulations to the extent thereof conflicts with Clause 6 of the Regulations which provides for re-evaluation and re-scrutiny of the result. The rationale underlying the rule of re-evaluation is that no candidate should suffer for the mistake of the examiner and if a candidate is deprived of the result, he deserves, which Clause 10 of the Regulations fails to consider. She seeks a writ quashing the impugned provision and for a further direction upon the Sikkim University to award the gold medal to the petitioner.

The respondent no. 1 have filed a joint counter-affidavit. It is stated that the Sikkim University is a Central University established in the year 2007 by the Sikkim University Act, 2006 of Parliament of India the Act and others empowered to make statutes, ordinances for conditions of award of fellowships, scholarships, studentships, medals and prizes. It is stated that section 30 (f) of the Act provides for the issuance of ordinances providing for conditions of award of fellowships, scholarships, medals and prizes. It is stated that Clause 31 of the Act empowers the University to make regulations. It is stated that it is in exercise of section 31 of the Act that the Sikkim University had framed the Regulations which was duly approved by the Executive Council on the recommendation.