The Madras High Court recently held that the conferment of a gold medal is not a legal or statutory right of a student which can be enforced under through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution [Vennila Vs State]..Questions of eligibility for academic honours must be left to the judgment of academic authorities, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy held.The Court was deciding a petition filed by Vennila, a B.Com student of Bharathidasan Government College for Women at Puducherry, who sought a direction to Pondicherry University and the college to award her a gold medal for the 2015–2018 academic session."I take into consideration that the conferment of a gold medal is by way of an academic scheme so as to recognise the academic brilliance of the student so that it results in further motivation to the student, who receives the medal and also the other students to aspire to receive one. There is no legal right, that is involved," the Court said..The petitioner had secured 2014 marks out of 2600 and was the overall topper of her batch. However, the gold medal was awarded to another student who had scored 1923 marks. The petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground that she was absent for one examination in the first semester, which she later cleared as an arrear.The petitioner argued that her absence was due to dengue fever and could not be treated as a “second attempt”. Reliance was placed on a Delhi High Court ruling which held that absence on medical grounds does not amount to a second attempt for the purpose of awarding a gold medal.Pondicherry University opposed the plea and argued that award of gold medals was governed by an academic circular dated June 4, 2018, which required candidates to have passed all examinations “in the first attempt itself”. It was argued that the requirement was uniformly applied and that absence or failure made no difference..The Court upheld the university’s stand, stating that awarding gold medal forms part of an academic scheme intended to recognise excellence and does not create any enforceable legal right. The Court held that where eligibility criteria are uniformly interpreted, their construction must be left to academicians.The Court declined to follow the Delhi High Court’s view, noting that individual circumstances such as illness or absence cannot be judicially equated in competitive academic evaluations and that no violation of equality was made out..At the same time, the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s exceptional academic performance, noting that she had secured 109 marks more than the next candidate. Considering the peculiar facts and the fact that the college had since become an autonomous institution, the Court directed the college to issue an academic merit certificate to the petitioner..The petitioner was represented by advocate Bhargavi. .The respondent was represented by advocate Syed Mustafa..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
