TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds University's Rule Change for Students</h1> <h3>Punjab University Versus Subash Chander</h3> Punjab University Versus Subash Chander - 1984 AIR 1415, 1984 SCR (3) 822 Issues Involved:1. Retrospective application of amended university regulations.2. Authority of the university to change examination regulations.3. Validity of grace marks awarded under amended regulations.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Retrospective Application of Amended University Regulations:The core issue was whether the amended regulation regarding grace marks should apply retrospectively to a student who joined the course under the old regulation. The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the amended regulation could not apply retrospectively, as it would alter the conditions to the student's detriment. The court observed that the Senate lacked the power to frame regulations with retrospective effect under Section 31 of the Punjab University Act. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating that the change in regulation was prospective and not retrospective. The Court emphasized that no promise was made to the student that the rules at the time of admission would remain unchanged throughout the course.2. Authority of the University to Change Examination Regulations:The university's right to amend examination regulations was upheld. The Full Bench of the High Court had opined that the Senate did not have the power to frame regulations retrospectively. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 31 of the Punjab University Act empowered the Senate to make regulations from time to time, consistent with the Act, and that such regulations could apply to all students, whether old or new. The Court highlighted that the Senate had the authority to fix the percentage of marks required for passing and to grant or refuse grace marks.3. Validity of Grace Marks Awarded Under Amended Regulations:Subash Chander argued that he should be awarded grace marks under the old regulation, which allowed 1% of the total aggregate marks of all subjects. The amended regulation, however, permitted grace marks up to 1% of the total marks of each subject. The High Court had ruled in favor of Subash Chander, stating that the old regulation should apply. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Senate had the authority to amend the grace marks rule and that the amended regulation was reasonable and prospective. The Court noted that the amended rule was intended to address a defect in the old rule and was applied fairly to all students appearing for examinations after the amendment.Separate Judgments:The Supreme Court delivered a unified judgment, without separate opinions from different judges.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the university was correct in applying the amended regulation to Subash Chander. The Court affirmed the university's authority to amend examination regulations and clarified that the amended rule was prospective, not retrospective. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs, and the decision was made not to affect the already declared result of Subash Chander's examination in Midwifery.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
