Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 15 (ALL)

Bhaiya Chhotey Lal Singh v. Kul Sachiv, University of Gorakhpur

1987-01-05

B.N.MISRA, S.D.AGARWALA

body1987
JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D. Gupta, learned counsel for the University. The petitioner had appeared in the B. A. Part I Examination held by the University of Gorakhpur in the year 1984-85. The petitioner was a student of Satish Chandra Degree College, Ballia affiliated to the Gorakhpur University. The result of B.A. Part I Examination was announced by the University and in accordance with the Principal of the College issued a mark sheet to the petitioner. In this mark sheet, though the petitioner had failed in English and Theory of Geography, he was shown as passed. Since the petitioner was shown as passed, the petitioner attended classes for B.A. Part II and thereafter appeared in B.A Part II examination held by the University. 2. Before B.A. II examination result could be declared the University discovered that the petitioner had actually failed in B.A. Part I examination and by bonafide mistake in the mark sheet it was mentioned that the petitioner had passed and as such the petitioner's result was with held. The show cause notice was thereafter issued by the University to the petitioner as to why his result for B.A. Part II be not with held as he has already failed in B.A. Part I examination. The petitioner has, consequently filed the present petition in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the University to declare his result for B.A. Part II. 3. It is not disputed that in fact, the petitioner had failed in B.A. Part I examination. Since the petitioner had failed in B. A. Part I examination, the University was right in not declaring the result of the petitioner for B. A. Part II examination. 4. In Bindeshwari Prasad Bhariiya v. University of Gorakhpur, reported in 1983 Education cases, page 241, in a similar case, this Court directed that the candidate be permitted to appear again in part I examination and in case he succeeded in part I examination, his result for part II examination be also declared, we agree with the view' taken in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Bhariiya (supra). 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and we direct that the result of B. A. Part II examination of the petitioner shall be declared only after the petitioner passes in B.A. Part I examination. 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and we direct that the result of B. A. Part II examination of the petitioner shall be declared only after the petitioner passes in B.A. Part I examination. The University's all permit the petitioner to appear in the next B. A. Part I examination held by the University. In case the petitioner passes B.A. Part I examination of the University, the result of the petitioner for B.A. Part II shall without delay be declared, parties are directed to bear their own costs.