BHUSHAN UTTAM KHARE versus DEAN, B.J. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 386 · Decided: 28-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHUSHAN UTT AM KHARE 
v. 
DEAN, B.J. MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS. 
JANUARY 28, 1992 
B 
[S. RATNA VEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEE VI, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Poona University Act. J 974---0rdinance 134A and 146-Revalua-. 
tion of answer books-Whether second revaluation permissible. 
Consequent upon the announcement of his M.B.B.S. Examina-
tion result on 12.12.1990, the petitioner alongwith other 166 stu-
dents, applied for revaluation of answer books under University of 
Poona Ordinance 134A. When the revaluation results were declared, 
certain students made representation oto the University Authorities 
for their answer papers b.eing revalued from the same set of exa-
miners. The University on consideration of that representation ap-
pointed a Committee for scrutiny and to reassess theory papers of 
the students acquiring more than 20% marks after revaluation, from 
senior teachers of the Faculty. After scrutiny, it was found out that 
the marks are closer to the·original marks in Medicine, Surgery and 
Preventive and Social Medicine. The Commitee therefore recom-
mended that the entire revaluation of the papers should he can-
celled. The Executive Council by a resolution cancelled the result of 
the revaluation and directed fresh revaluation and the second re-
valuation was done through the examiners outside the Sate and the 
result declared on the basis thereof. The petitioner and others chal-
lenged the aforesaid decision of the Executive Council cancelling 
·the earlier revaluation and directing a second revaluation by means 
of writ petitions. It was contended before the High Court on behalf 
of the petitioners that the action of the ExecuHve Council was arbi-
trary inasmuch as there was no, malpractice, fraud or anything ob-
jectionable to the revaluation as the examiners were chosen by the 
Vice-Chancellor as enjoined under the Ordinance. Hence the can-
cellation of revaluation was not proper. The High Court repelled 
the two contentions advanced before it and dismissed the writ peti-
tions. Hence this Petition for Special Leave to appeal. 
Dismissing the Petition for special leave to appeal, this Court, 
HELD: In deciding the matters relating to orders passed by 
authorities of educational institutions, the Court should normally be 
386 
• 
B.U. KHARE v. MEDICAL COLLEGE 
387 
• 
-"'. 
very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling 
A, 
--
within the jnrisdiction of educational authorities should normally 
be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them 
only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. [390 B] 
Dnde'r Ordinance 134A, the Vice-Chancellor shall use his dis-
cretionary power to decide as to whether all the applications re-
ceived from the candidates, considered for revaluation or not. If as 
a result of revaluation of answer-books, the marks obtained by the 
candidate increase over the original marks by 10% or more then 
only the result of revaluation will be accepted by the University. 
[388 C-D) 
Ordinance 146 is comprehensive enough to include revaluation 
also for further action. The fact that two examiners were also the 
members of the Committee which recommended for revaluation cannot 
result in any bias even if they had been directly concerned with the 
original evaluation. It is true that in the second revaluation also 
there had been some changes between the original valuation and 
the revaluation results. However, it is not so glaring or demonstra-
bly unconscionable as seen in the first revaluation. [390 D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURiSDICTION: Special leav~ Petition (Civil) 
No. 10330of1991. 
c 
.B 
c 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.1991 of the Bombay High 
E 
Court in Writ Petition No. 186of1991. 
Kapil Sibal, Makrand D. Adkar and Ejaz Maqbool for the Petitioner. 
R.D. Tulpule, D.M.Nargolkar, Ms.Kiran Bhagalia, Ms.V.D.Khanna 
and A.M. Khanwilkar for the respondents. 
Ca veator-in,person. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
F 
The petitioner, Bhushan Uttam Khare, appeared for the Third Year 
MB.B.S. Examination held by University of Poona in the months of 
October-November, 1990. The results of the said examination were de-
G 
clared on 12.12.1990. As per University of Poona Ordinance 134A, the 
petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer papers. 167 students in: 
eluding the petitioner had applied for revaluation. When the revaluation 
results were declared, certain students made representation to the Uni ver-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.