Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 802 (RAJ)

Aruna Vyas v. JNV University

1998-07-28

MOHD.YAMIN

body1998
Judgment Mohd. Yamin, J.-Petitioner Miss Aruna Vyas’s case is that she submitted application form as a private student for B.Sc. part I course. She was allowed to deposit fees by respondents and the same was deposited on 15-11-1996 in the office of Dean, Faculty of Science, Jodhpur. The fees for practical course was also deposited vide Challan No. 29410 on 27-12-1996. She was allotted practical group D-11 by the Faculty of Science and regularly attended the practicals of physics and chemistry on prescribed dates and time. She also completed the course in time. She was required to obtain the certificate of practical courses from the Head of Department of Chemistry and Physics. The Head of Department of Chemistry issued a certificate and the same was deposited in the examination section. She was earlier granted permission to take examination as a private candidate. But vide communication dated 6-3-97, she was informed by the Registrar that she should deposit the certificates of practicals undertaken from the concerned Heads of Department otherwise she will not be allowed to appear in the examination. This letter is Anux. 5. She deposited the certificate given by the Head of Department of Chemistry but the Head of Department of Physics did not issue certificate. She made all effort to obtain certificate from the Head of Department of Physics where she had completed the practical course, but no such certificate was issued and she was not allowed to appear in the main examination of B.Sc. part 1. She has challenged the order by which her candidature was rejected as she failed to produce a certificate from the Head of Department concerned about completion of practicals as required under Ordinance 114 of the University. 2. The respondent University entered appearance and filed its return submitting that it is the petitioner who has to submit the certificate of completion of practical course in the Department of Physics and unless she submits such a certificate she cannot be permitted to appear in the examination. Other objections have also been raised. But the crux of the matter is whether it was the petitioner who was required to produce the certificate of attending the practicals from the Head of Department of Physics? 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have also gone through the record. 4. Other objections have also been raised. But the crux of the matter is whether it was the petitioner who was required to produce the certificate of attending the practicals from the Head of Department of Physics? 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have also gone through the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Head of Department of Physics was annoyed with the University administration and the petitioner has suffered because of the annoyance between two authorities of the University. He has drawn my attention to Annx. 7, a letter written by the Head of Department of Physics addressed to the Dean, Faculty of Science. It is dated 20-3-1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner appeared in the examination by the order of the Court but her result has not been declared because she has not submitted the certificate issued by the Head of Department of Physics. He has submitted that the petitioner should not suffer because of differences between two officials of the University. He also submitted that she was allotted group D-11 and she was to take practicals of Physics on Wednesday and Thursday and on Friday and Saturday Chemistry every week. He submitted that when the Head of Department of Chemistry had issued certificate that she had attended practicals, it cannot be believed that she might not have attended the practicals of Physics. He has, therefore, submitted that the writ petition of the petitioner should be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to the relevant provision of Ordinance 114 of the University which reads as follows: “Women candidates are permitted to appear in the science subjects provided they produce a certificate from the Head of Department concerned to the effect that they have completed the practicals.” This provision was considered in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1529/97, Saroj Saboo v. JNV University, decided on 10-2-1998 and it was held that it is for the student to produce the certificate from the Head of Department concerned to the effect that she has completed practicals. This view was upheldby the Division Bench in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 289/98, Saroj Saboo v. JNV University, decided on 11-5-1998. This view was upheldby the Division Bench in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 289/98, Saroj Saboo v. JNV University, decided on 11-5-1998. Therefore, it is a mandatory provision that the candidate should produce certificate from the Head of Department concerned to the effect that she has completed the practicals. 6. Now the question is what is the position in this case? The petitioner submitted a letter Annx. 6 to the Head of Department, Faculty of Science, JNV University, Jodhpur in which she stated that she was regularly attending practical classes and her attendance was recorded accordingly. But in her additional affidavit dated 19-9-97 she has stated that for private candidates in the office of Faculty of Science they are not maintaining any attendance register. In absence of such a register how the attendance could be recorded? Thus her averment in Annx. 6 that her attendance was recorded is a false statement. According to her when the Chemistry Department had issued certificate because she attended the Chemistry classes, she had attended the practicals of Physics as well. In my view no such presumption can be made in view of the letter of the Head of Department of Physics addressed to the Dean, Faculty of Science which is Annx. 7 on record. He has very clearly written in the letter that the candidate (Aruna Vyas) should have reported to him that she had started working so that it could be possible to ascertain her presence but she did not report to the Head of Department of Physics. As such no certificate was issued by the Head of Department of Physics. It is the candidate herself who has to procure the certificate and produce to the University. Since Aruna Vyas, petitioner, was unsuccessful in producing such a certificate, the respondent University was right in rejecting her candidature to appear in B.Sc. part I examination of 1997 as private woman candidate. 7. Consequently, this writ petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.