Raushan Rishu v. State Of Bihar — 1999 DIGILAW 73 (PAT)

Judgment 1. In what seems to be a case of failure to properly discharge statutory responsibilities, the Magadh University takes an attitude of apparent unconcern for the career of the engineering students in the two colleges affiliated to it. The apathy of the University has forced two students of the Maulana Azad College of Engineering and Technology, an affiliated unit of Magadh University to come to this Court seeking appropriate directions to the University authorities. The two students, petitioners before this Court, were admitted to the Bachelor of Science (Engineering) course for the Session 1996-2000. They make a grievance that the rate at which the course is proceeding and the delayed manner in which the University is holding the examinations, have already made them lose about one year before completing the Ist year of the four years course; and that in this way their four years course, which was supposed to be over in the year 2000, would not be completed before 2003 and they would thus lose three years even before they took up their career as engineering graduates. 2. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, the University authorities. In this affidavit, it was stated that the University has two engineering colleges, namely, the Maulana Azad College of Engineering and Technology, Patna and the Patna Institute of Technology, Patna both of which were affiliated to it. It was further stated that the course of studies in the engineering faculty was of four years and the colleges were required to complete each year course in about ten months a time, allowing two months to the University for holding the examination and announcing the result. It was also stated that the University holds examination after the two colleges complete the year course and the Dean, Faculty of Engineering sends a proposal with a specified date for the commencement of the examination. Some explanation was then offered for the delay in holding the Ist year examination of the 1996 batch. It was finally stated that if the petitioners college completed the 2nd year course at an early date and if the Dean sent the proposal for conducting the 2nd year examination, the University would hold the examination at an early date as fixed by this Court. 3. It was finally stated that if the petitioners college completed the 2nd year course at an early date and if the Dean sent the proposal for conducting the 2nd year examination, the University would hold the examination at an early date as fixed by this Court. 3. I am sorry to observe that it was an indifferent affidavit in which the University authorities neither denied the predicament being faced by the petitioners nor did they indicate much concern for remedying the problem. 4. A separate affidavit was filed by the Dean of Faculty of Engineering, Magadh University who also happens to be the Director of the Maulana Azad College of Engineering and Technology. This was a much better affidavit in which the position as it has come to exist, was stated with precision and also some measures were suggested for remedying the problem. The existing position of the 1996-2000 batch of the B.Sc. Engineering course in the two colleges of the University was indicated as follows :Maulana Azad College of Enginneing and Institute of Technology, PatnaPatna Institute of Technology, Technology, Patna (i) Classes of 1st year started on 14-1-97Classes of 1st year started on 22-4-97(ii) Course of 1st year completed on 31-10-97Courses of 1st year completed on 30-11-1997(iii) Proposal for University examination to start on 1-12-1997.Same(iv) 1st year University exam. actually held from 9-1-98 to 20-3-98.(v) Result of 1st year exam. announced on 29-7-1998(vi) Classes of 2nd year started on 24-4-1998Classes of 2nd year started on 4-8-1998 5. The points that emerge from the above can be summarised as follows :(i) The classes did not start simultaneously in the two colleges; Ist year classes started in the Patna Institute of Technology more than three months later and similarly the 2nd year classes started about 31/2 months later; the 1st year course was completed in that college a month later than the petitioners college.(ii) The University held the examination after a delay of more than one month from the date proposed by the Dean. There was unjustified and inordinate delay in announcing the result after more than four months from the date of conclusion of the examination.(iii) 2nd year classes were started in the Patna Institute of Technology only after the pronouncement of the result of the Ist year examination though classes could start soon after the conclusion of the examination as was done in the petitioners college. 6. 6. In the Dean affidavit the following projections were made with a view to control the delayed session and to at least reduce the loss of year(s) being faced by the students : M.A.College of Engineering and Technology PatnaPatna Institute of Technology, Patna (i)2nd year course expected to be completed by 31-1-1999--(ii)University exam. of 2nd year proposed from 1-3-1999 to 31-3-1999.Date of 2nd year University exam. proposed by this college 15-3-1999Result of 2nd year should be published by 8-5-19993rd year classes start from 1-7-1999 7. If was further stated on behalf of the Dean that if the above described schedule was followed and if it were ensured that the 2nd year results would be published by 15-6-1998, before the start of the summer vacation, then the four years course of the 1996-2000 batch would be completed by June, 2001, that is to say, with the loss of only one year to the students of the 1996-2000 session. It is thus to be seen that even the schedule suggested by the Dean does not prevent the students from losing one year. In other words, if the schedule suggested by the Dean is strictly adhered to, the students would lose only one year and not three years as they otherwise stand to lose. 8. What was evident from the two counter- affidavits filed on behalf of the University authorities and the Dean of Faculty of Engineering and what I found particularly sorrowful and distressing was that the loss of year(s) being faced by the student was not due to any unforeseen or unsurmountable reason but simply on account of the laches, indifference and callousness of the University authorities. 9. This Court, therefore, found it very difficult to countenance such a situation and felt that the matter called for an intervention by this Court. 10. It had transpired from the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and by the Dean, Faculty of Engineering that besides the Maulana Azad College of Engineering and Technology, there was another engineering college in the University, namely, the Patna Institute of Technology which was not represented before this Court till then. Therefore, by order dated 9-10-1998, the Patna Institute of Technology, through its Governing Body was directed to be impleaded as a party respondent in this case and notices were directed to be issued to it. Therefore, by order dated 9-10-1998, the Patna Institute of Technology, through its Governing Body was directed to be impleaded as a party respondent in this case and notices were directed to be issued to it. In response to the notice, a counter-affidavit was filed by the Secretary of the Patna Educational Development Trust which runs the Patna Institute of Technology. In that affidavit it was stated that the Directors of the two colleges had met together in this connection and they were of the view that the final University examination of the 2nd year should be held in the 3rd week of March, 1999. It was further stated that in case the 2nd year University examination was fixed on or after 15-3-1999, the students and the management of that college would have no objection. 11. A supplementary counter-affidavit was also filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit it was stated as follows :"That it is stated and submitted that this Hon ble Court may pass appropriate order in the matter of regularising the academic session of the two engineering colleges of the Magadh University and in the matter of conducting the examination which shall be adhered to." 12. It is noted above that the classes for the session 1996-2000 started from 14-1-1996 in the Maulana Azad College of Engineering and Technology and from 22-4-1997 in Patna Institute of Technology. The course having started in the year 1996, counsel for all the parties, including Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan, appearing for the Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Mr. Shivendra Kishore, counsel for the University were in agreement that it should be completed before the end of the year 2000 and all efforts should be made in that direction. For achieving this object it would be necessary to complete each year course within a period of nine months, inclusive of holidays (instead of ten months time allowed to the colleges by the University at present). It was also considered advisable that the students should be allowed a preparatory gap of 3-4 weeks between the completion of the course and the commencement of the examination. It was also considered advisable that the students should be allowed a preparatory gap of 3-4 weeks between the completion of the course and the commencement of the examination. Thus after hearing all concerned this Court considers it reasonable and appropriate to lay down the following schedule for the batch of 1996-2000 so that it may complete the course within the prescribed period of four years: Commencement of classesHolding of examinationAnnouncement of result 2nd year--From, March 8, 1999 (Monday)1st week of May, 1999.3rd yearFrom April 99From November 10, 19992nd week of January, 20004th year 1st December, 1999 (Wednesday)2nd Monday of September,20002nd week of November, 2000 13. At this stage, Mr. Shivendra Kishore and Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan urged the Court to give further direction to maintain and improve the purity of the examination process. On hearing counsel for the parties and on a consideration of all the relevant materials further directions in this regard are given below. The following directions though mainly intended for the future sessions would also apply, in so far as relevant, to the batch of 1996-2000 :(I) This Court has already passed order in C.W.J.C. No. 10256 of 1995 giving a number of directions to the District Administration, Universities and the District Judge in order to ensure that examinations are held fairly. All those directions are to be followed strictly. Further, the deputation of Magistrate and Armed Forced is to be made for the entire period of examination and it should not be limited only to occasional checking. Failure to follow and faithfully carry out the directions given by this Court would be deemed as deliberate disobedience of the order of the Court.(II) Of late cases are coming to light where in place of the actual candidates some imposters impersonating the candidates appeared in the examination and wrote the answer sheets. In order to curb this pernicious practice the candidate photograph on the admit card should be laminated so that the chances of tampering with the photograph may be minimised. In order to curb this pernicious practice the candidate photograph on the admit card should be laminated so that the chances of tampering with the photograph may be minimised. The duplicate admit card available at the University should be sent to the Centre of examination well in advance.(III) For the future sessions the two colleges and the Government agencies holding the selection test should ensure that admissions in the two colleges are so completed that classes of the Ist year should start latest by the month of September each year.(IV) For holding the University examination the list of Examiners/Paper setters would be recommended by the Dean of Faculty of Engineering in consultation with the Moderation Board at least three months before the expected date of examination for each year. The list should be returned back to the Dean after its approval by the Vice-Chancellor within two weeks from the date of its submission.(V) The Dean would be responsible for getting the question paper set and he would sent the papers to the University within the next two weeks. The University on receipt of the question papers from the Dean would have them printed without any delay.(VI) For meeting the necessary expenditure in this regard, the Directors of the two colleges would retain 50% of the examination fee collected from the students and would put the amount at the disposal of the Dean who would render the account to the University after the examinations are over and deposit the balance amount, if any, with the University.(VII) The Centre(s) of examination would be selected by the Vice-Chancellor himself in consultation with the Directors of the two Engineering Colleges. The Vice-Chancellor would ensure that the Centre(s) are such that the chances of use of unfair means at the examination are eliminated.(VIII) The University would send the question papers and the answer sheets to the Centre(s) of examination and get the examination conducted as per the programme prepared earlier in consultation with the Dean.(IX) Once the examinations are complete, the answer sheets would be put under the charge of the Dean, who would be made responsible to get the answer sheets evaluated centrally after those are duly coded. The evaluation of answer sheets would be completed within two weeks. The evaluation of answer sheets would be completed within two weeks. The Dean would get the marks tabulated subject-wise and send the same to the University.(X) The University would get the Tabulation register ready in two weeks incorporating the sessional and periodical marks sent by the two colleges as internal evaluation. After the tabulation is complete, the results would be sent for the scrutiny of the Dean and then announced.(XI) All concerned, including the district administration and the officials of the University are mandated to carry out these directions truly and faithfully. 14. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 15. Let copies of this order be given to Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan, representing the Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Mr. Shivendra Kishore appearing for the University. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the Home Secretary for issuing necessary directions to the officials of the district administration in the light of this order.Order accordingly.