In a writ petition filed before the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, to call for the records related to an order dated 19-11-2021 passed by the Bharathidasan Government College for Women (respondent 2), and to quash the same, while directing the State and the College to award a gold medal to the petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy considered the merit of the petitioner and directed that a certificate should be issued to her by the College mentioning that she was a gold medallist as well as topper of the year.
The petitioner completed her B. Com (Corporate Secretaryship) from the said College in the academic year 2015 to 2018. Although the petitioner was the top performer, she was not awarded a gold medal. However, respondent 5 was awarded the gold medal despite scoring fewer marks than the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents and approached the Court after the impugned order rejected the same.
The petitioner submitted that he was denied the gold medal because he missed an examination in the first semester due to dengue. Thereafter, she wrote the examination in the ensuing semester as an arrears paper and cleared it in the first attempt.
The respondents submitted that Pondicherry University issued a Circular dated 04-06-2018, which clearly stated that all subjects should be passed in the first attempt. It was contended that whether the petitioner was absent or failed in the first attempt did not matter.
The Court perused the said circular and noted that the meaning of the word ‘first attempt’ was in question. It was said that since the word ‘attempt’ was not defined in the circular or in any of the relevant statutes, it could not be given a hard-and-fast meaning and that it must depend on the context in which the word is sought to be construed.
The Court considered that a gold medal is conferred under an academic scheme to recognize students’ brilliance, thereby motivating and inspiring other students to achieve the same. It was held that there is no legal right involved and that, in such matters, the ascertainment of the meaning of ‘first attempt’ should be left to the academicians, especially because they are involved in imparting a meaning uniformly for all students.
Further, the Court stated that it was not inclined to follow the Delhi High Court’s decision in Abhinav Pandey v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 2028/2016] as preferring to attempt the exam is an individual decision of the candidate, and it cannot be said that any equality clause is violated. While disposing of the petition, the Court stated that even if the petitioner had been given zero for the second attempt, she would still lead by 9 marks and directed that since the College was now an autonomous institution, a certificate should be issued to the petitioner, which mentions that she was a gold medallist and had topped the year.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – M/s C. Bhargavi
For Respondents – Mr. R. Syed Musthafa (Spl. GP)
