Page 1

                               NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.……6794………..  OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14896 OF 2013)

Pt.  Ravishankar Shukla University & Anr.   …..Appellants

Versus

Gopal Mishra   …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In  the  judgment  under  appeal,  the  High  Court  of  

Chhattisgarh framed the following question for adjudication,  

namely:-  

“Whether  Pandit  Ravishankar  Shukla  University, Raipur (the University) is liable to  issue mark  sheet  to  the  students,  who are  permitted  to  appear  in  the  examination for  improving  division  of  M.Com  examination  (the  subsequent-examination)  under  Ordinance  24  of  the  University  (the  Ordinance),  even  if  the  division  does  not  change?”

C.A. No. ___________ of  2013                                                                      Page 1 of 11  (@ SLP (C) No.14896 of 2013)

Page 2

3. The  High  Court  answered  the  question  in  the  

affirmative.  We disagree. Ordinance No.24 of the University  

does not oblige it to issue a fresh mark sheet to a student  

who does not improve his division on taking a subsequent  

examination held for improving the division.

4. The respondent Shri  Gopal  Mishra completed his  two  

year  Master  of  Commerce  course  with  an  aggregate  of  

49.54% marks. This placed him in the second division as per  

Ordinance  No.  24  of  the  University  which  relates  to  the  

Master of Commerce examination.   

5. The Ordinance is in the nature of a composite scheme  

for obtaining a degree of Master of Commerce.  It provides,  

inter alia, for improving the division obtained by a student  

based on the aggregate percentage of marks obtained by  

him/her by taking a repeat examination without attending a  

regular  course  of  study  in  a  college  affiliated  to  the  

University or in a teaching department of the University.

6. The relevant clauses of the Ordinance relating to the  

division  that  may  be  obtained  by  a  student  and  the  

C.A. No. ___________ of  2013                                                                      Page 2 of 11  (@ SLP (C) No.14896 of 2013)

Page 3

procedure for improving the division obtained by him or her  

are given in Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Ordinance.  These read  

as follows:-  

“7. For  both  the  Previous  and  Final   examination a candidate  will  be  declared   successful if he/she obtains  at  least  36%  of  

the aggregate marks in the subject.

No division will be assigned on the result of the  previous examination. The division in which a  candidate is placed shall be determined on the  basis of aggregate of marks obtained in both  the  M.  Com  Previous  and  M.  Com  Final  Examination.

8.

Successful candidates who obtain 60% of more  of the aggregate marks shall be placed in the  First  Division,  those  obtaining  less  than  60%  but not less than 48% in the Second Division  and  all  other  successful  candidates  obtaining  less than 48% in the Third Division.

9.

Candidates  who  have  passed  the  M.Com  examination  of  the  University  in  Third  or  Second  Division  and  desire  to  appear  at  the  M.Com examination for improving division may,  without attending a regular course of study in a  college  affiliated  to  the  University  or  in  a  Teaching  Department  of  the  University  be  

C.A. No. ___________ of  2013                                                                      Page 3 of 11  (@ SLP (C) No.14896 of 2013)

Page 4

allowed to appear at the aforesaid examination  as  non  collegiate  student  on  the  following  conditions.

(i) There shall be only two division for such  candidates i.e.  First  Division and Second  Division.  The marks required for obtaining  these  divisions  shall  be  the  same  as  prescribed  in  the  Ordinance  i.e.  examinees who are successful in final of  the examination and have obtained 60%  or more of the aggregate of the marks in  Previous  and  Final  of  the  examinations  taken together shall be placed in the First  Division  and  examinees  who  are  successful in Final of the examination and  have obtained less than 60% but not less  than  48%  of  the  aggregate  marks  in  Previous  and  Final  of  the  Examination  taken  together  shall  be  placed  in  the  Second Division.

(ii) The  results  of  the  candidates  obtaining  less than 48% of the aggregate marks in  Previous  and  Final  of  the  examination  taken together shall not be declared.

(iii) Candidates  shall  have  the  option  to  appear  at  both  the  Previous  and  Final  Examination  in  one  and  the  same  year  and  for  being  successful  at  the  examination,  the  candidates  shall  obtain  48% of the aggregate marks.   

Provided that such candidates who opt to  appear in Previous and Final Examinations  separately shall  have to obtain minimum  aggregate  required  for  the  Previous  examination but he will have to obtain at  

C.A. No. ___________ of  2013                                                                      Page 4 of 11  (@ SLP (C) No.14896 of 2013)

Page 5

least 48% in the aggregate of the Previous  and Final examinations taken together or  else his result will be cancelled.

(iv) The syllabus for the examinations shall be  the  same  as  prescribed  for  the  year  in  which the examination is held.

(v) Not  more  than  two  attempts  shall  be  allowed  to  such  candidates.   Failure  or  non-appearance at the examination after  permission  has  been  accorded  by  the  University,  shall  be  counted  as  an  attempt.  

Provided  however  such  candidates  who  opt  to  appear  at  the  Previous  and Final  examinations  separately  will  be  allowed  one attempt at the Previous examination  and  two  attempts  at  the  Final  examination.

(vi) Candidates  who  wish  to  avail  the  opportunity given in foregoing para’s will  have to apply for permission as required  in the Ordinance relating to Admission of  non-collegiate  students  to  the  University  examination  along  with  requisite  Registration Fees.

(vii) In  case  a  student  improves  his  division  under  provision  of  this  para,  the  fresh  degree will be issued after cancelling his  first degree.”

7. As  mentioned  above,  Mishra  obtained  49.54% marks  

which  places  him  in  the  second  division.   Since  he  was  

C.A. No. ___________ of  2013                                                                      Page 5 of 11  (@ SLP (C) No.14896 of 2013)

Page 6

desirous  of  improving  his  division  by  obtaining  a  first  

division,  he  appeared  in  a  repeat  examination  as  a  non-

collegiate  student  in  March  2010.    After  he  took  the  

examination, his result was not declared.  This led him to file  

a  writ  petition  in  the  High  Court  of  Chhattisgarh  for  a  

declaration of his result and for the issuance of a mark sheet  

based  on  the  result  of  the  repeat  examination.  The  writ  

petition was disposed of  by a learned Single Judge by an  

order dated 29th September, 2011 in which it was held, inter  

alia,  that  in  the  present  age  of  transparency  there  is  no  

reason  to  conceal  the  marks  obtained  by  Mishra  in  the  

repeat examination.  Accordingly, a direction was given to  

the University to supply the marks obtained by Mishra in the  

repeat examination held in March, 2010.

8. In  compliance with the orders passed by the learned  

Single Judge the University did intimate to Mishra the marks  

he had secured in the repeat examination, but that was in  

the form of a letter. No formal mark sheet was issued to him.

9. Mishra  was  of  the  view  that  the  University  had  

committed  contempt  of  the  orders  of  the  learned  Single  

C.A. No. ___________ of  2013                                                                      Page 6 of 11  (@ SLP (C) No.14896 of 2013)

Page 7

Judge  by  not  issuing  a  fresh  mark  sheet.  Accordingly,  he  

moved  a  contempt  petition  which  was  dismissed  by  the  

learned Single Judge on 31st January, 2012 holding that the  

University was obliged only to intimate the marks obtained  

by Mishra but was not obliged to issue a fresh mark sheet.

10. In view of the above, Mishra filed another writ petition  

in the High Court,  for the issuance of a fresh mark sheet.  

That  writ  petition  was  withdrawn on  3rd September,  2012  

with liberty to take recourse to such other forum as may be  

available to him under the provisions of law.   

11.  Mishra then filed an application for review of the order  

dated 29th September, 2012 passed in the writ petition.  The  

application came to  be disposed of  by the learned Single  

Judge on 16th January,  2013,  inter  alia,  with  the  following  

observations:-  

“By  this  petition,  the  petitioner  seeks  modification of the order dated 29.09.2011 to  the extent that the respondent University be  directed to issue a fresh/new mark sheet to  the petitioner for the repeat M.Com (Previous  &  Final)  examination.  This  tantamount  to  attempt of the petitioner to seek opportunity  to argue the entire case afresh under the garb  of  review  petition,  which  is  not  permissible  

C.A. No. ___________ of  2013                                                                      Page 7 of 11  (@ SLP (C) No.14896 of 2013)

Page 8

and tenable in law.  This review petition is in  the  nature  of  appeal,  which  cannot  be  considered and decided by this Court”.

12. Thereafter,  Mishra  preferred  an  intra-court  appeal  

against the order dated 29th September, 2012 and the order  

dated 16th January, 2013.  The appeal was disposed of by the  

Division Bench of the High Court by the order under appeal  

dated 20th February, 2013.

13. In  our  view,  Ordinance  No.  24  prescribes  a  scheme  

which,  inter alia enables a student to improve the division  

obtained  by  him  or  her  in  the  Master  of  Commerce  

examination.  The Ordinance does not postulate giving the  

student  an  opportunity  merely  for  improving  the  marks  

without any improvement in the division obtained.  Were this  

so, the language of the Ordinance would have been explicit  

and  would  have  clearly  spelt  out  that   a  student  could  

appear in a repeat examination not only for the purposes of  

improving the division obtained by him or her but even for  

the purposes of improving the marks.

14. Factually,  Mishra  improved  upon  the  marks  earlier  

obtained by him.  But he did not improve his division despite  

C.A. No. ___________ of  2013                                                                      Page 8 of 11  (@ SLP (C) No.14896 of 2013)

Page 9

the improvement in marks.  Since Mishra did not improve his  

division, he was not entitled to a fresh degree in terms of  

Clause 9 (vii)  of  the Ordinance.  As  mentioned above,  the  

Ordinance  does  not  postulate  any  obligation  on  the  

University to issue a fresh mark sheet.   

15. Learned  Counsel  sought  to  draw  support  from  the  

conclusion  of  the  High  Court  that  nothing  prohibited  the  

University from issuing a fresh mark sheet.  While this may  

be so,  there  is  equally  no  obligation  on  the  University  to  

issue a fresh mark sheet, nor does Mishra have any right to  

obtain  a  fresh  mark  sheet  from  the  University  merely  

because his marks had improved in the repeat examination.  

The  submission  of  learned  counsel  does  not  advance  

Mishra’s case in any manner.  

16. The  High  Court  concluded  that  the  word  “division”  

includes  marks  also.   We  are  unable  to  accept  this  

conclusion.  It is quite clear from a reading of Clause 8 of the  

Ordinance that there are three divisions that a student can  

obtain on the basis of the aggregate marks: those  obtaining  

more  than  60% aggregate  marks  are  placed  on  the  first  

C.A. No. ___________ of  2013                                                                      Page 9 of 11  (@ SLP (C) No.14896 of 2013)

Page 10

division; those obtaining less than 60% aggregate marks but  

not less than 48% aggregate marks are placed in the second  

division and all  other  successful  candidates obtaining less  

than  48%  marks  (and  obtaining  at  least  36%  aggregate  

marks) are placed in the third division.  If the word “division”  

is to include marks, as held by the High Court, some of the  

clauses  in  the  Ordinance  would  lose  their  substance  and  

meaning  and  the  entire  concept  of  divisions  as  against  

marks would be rendered meaningless.

17. Learned counsel for Mishra pointed out that Clause 9 (ii)  

of  the  Ordinance  provides  that  the  results  of  candidates  

obtaining  less  than  48%  of  the  aggregate  marks  taken  

together  shall  not  be declared.   It  was  submitted on  this  

basis that the results of candidates obtaining more than 48%  

in the aggregate taken together (such as in Mishra’s case)  

shall be declared. It is difficult to accept the relevance of this  

contention  since  it  is  not  in  dispute  that  Mishra’s  results  

were declared in the first instance and the marks obtained  

by him in the repeat examination were communicated.  

C.A. No. ___________ of  2013                                                                      Page 10 of 11  (@ SLP (C) No.14896 of 2013)

Page 11

18. Ordinance No.  24 entitles a student to take a repeat  

examination only to improve the division obtained.  If there  

is  no  improvement  in  the  division  after  the  repeat  

examination, there is no occasion for the University to issue  

a fresh degree to that candidate.   The question of issuing a  

fresh mark sheet, if there is an improvement in the marks  

after the repeat examination, simply does not arise from the  

plain language and scheme incorporated in Ordinance No.  

24.   

19. Under these circumstances there is no option but to set  

aside the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court and  

allow this appeal.  We do so but with no order as to costs.   

…..……………………..J.      (R.M.Lodha)

 ….……………………..J.     New Delhi;                                         (Madan B. Lokur)

August 16, 2013

C.A. No. ___________ of  2013                                                                      Page 11 of 11  (@ SLP (C) No.14896 of 2013)

Page 12

C.A. No. ___________ of  2013                                                                      Page 12 of 11  (@ SLP (C) No.14896 of 2013)