Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to a university and an affiliated women’s college to confer a gold medal for a commerce programme, after the petitioner claimed she had secured higher aggregate marks than the medal recipient but was denied the medal because she missed one semester examination due to illness and cleared it later. The Court held that award of a gold medal is an academic matter to be left to academicians, involving no enforceable legal right and essentially a competition among students, and declined to adopt the approach taken by the Delhi High Court on “first attempt”. Instead, it directed issuance of a merit certificate acknowledging the petitioner as a topper and gold medallist in the same format as given to the medal recipient.

The writ petition was filed by a student who completed the B.Com (Corporate Secretaryship) course during the academic session 2015–2018 in a government women’s college affiliated to a central university. The petitioner challenged an order rejecting her request for conferment of a gold medal, despite having secured the highest aggregate marks among her batch.

Also Read: Excess Payment Of Land Acquisition Compensation To A Few Landowners Doesn’t Invalidate Others’ Compensation; Supreme Court

The grievance raised was that although the petitioner scored 2014 out of 2600 marks and ranked first overall, the gold medal was awarded to another student who secured lower marks. The rejection was based on the ground that the petitioner had been absent for one examination during the first semester and appeared for the same in the subsequent semester.

The petitioner contended that the absence was due to illness and that the examination was cleared when she appeared next, which according to her did not amount to a second attempt. Reliance was placed on a judgment of another High Court interpreting the term “attempt” in the context of gold medal eligibility.

The respondents opposed the claim by referring to a university circular governing the award of gold medals, which required that all examinations be cleared in the first attempt. They asserted that the condition was uniformly applied to all students and that the award of a gold medal was not a statutory right but an academic recognition governed by institutional norms.

The Court examined the circular governing the award of gold medals and noted that “the candidate who come under the top 3 positions should have completed their End Semester/Annual Exams conducted during May 2018 and passed out all the exams in the First attempt itself.”

The Court observed that “the meaning of the word ‘first attempt’ is the one, that is in question,” and recorded that the circular did not define the term expressly. It was further stated that “it cannot be given a hard-and-fast meaning one way or the other and it must depend on the context in which the word is sought to be construed.”

While taking note of the contrary view expressed by Delhi High Court, the Court recorded that “Therefore, with utmost respect to the Honourable Delhi High Court, I am not inclined to follow the said proposition, that is laid down, especially considering the fact that these are academic matters which should be advised left to the academicians and that no legal right is involved and competition between students are involved,”

At the same time, the Court noted the petitioner’s academic performance and recorded that “the petitioner is a very meritorious candidate, having secured a clear 109 marks ahead of the next candidate.” The Court also took note of the fact that the gold medal had already been conferred on another student long ago and observed that “for the court to interfere in the same would be unfair to them also.”

Also Read: Gasifier Crematorium Only Benefits Community: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Against Isha Foundation Crematorium Construction

The Court directed that “an academic certificate on merit, mentioning that the petitioner is also a gold medallist, topping the year, in the same format, as it was given to the 5th respondent, shall also be issued to the petitioner. Considering the peculiar circumstances of this case” and “considering the fact that the second respondent college is now an autonomous institution.” The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, and “no costs” were awarded.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Ms. C. Bhargavi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. R. Syed Musthafa, Special Government Pleader (Puducherry)

Case Title: H. Vennila v. State & Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 31106 of 2022
Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy