Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 164 (JK)

Mohd. Farooq Dar v. State Of J. &K.

2002-05-17

MUZAFFAR JAN

body2002
ORAL Petition has been submitted praying for direction to the respondents to issue the marks certificate of the petitioner for Higher Secondary Part II Examination. 2. The main grounds taken in the petition are that petitioner appeared in Higher Secondary Part II Examination in Arts Faculty under Roll No: 203447 in the year 1995 and he was declared "fail" in English. The petitioner subsequently appeared in Bi-annual Examination under Roll No: 215481 and his result was declared vide notification No:225/HSP-II (Private) Dec. 1995 dated 23.11.1996, in which the petitioner was declared successful. Petitioner, thereafter joined B.A. Part Ist, cleared the examination, joined B.A. Part-IInd and cleared the same also. The submission and grievance of the petitioner is that when he was to appear in the B.A. Final Examination, he was required to produce the marks certificate of Higher Secondary Part II examination, by the University. The marks certificate could not be submitted because of the plea taken by the respondent -Board that in fact petitioner had failed in Higher secondary Part II examination but due to clerical error the petitioner has been shown, as "pass" in the relevant subject and on this disability certificate could not be issued. Petitioner prays for direction to the respondents to issue the necessary certificate. 3. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner had actually failed in English paper of Higher Secondary Part II Examination but due to clerical error he was shown as having passed the said subject and when this mistake was detected and as the petitioner has not approached the respondents during the period of four years, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit accrued to him due to the clerical mistake of the respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submission made. On the facts and circumstances as made out from the record, the facts which are not denied are that petitioner appeared in 12th class examination in the year 1995 and was declared successful by the respondents. Acting on the result, petitioner persued his further educational career till 2000. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner contributed to the error committed by the respondents either by supression of facts or by active participation in tempering with the record of the respondents. Acting on the result, petitioner persued his further educational career till 2000. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner contributed to the error committed by the respondents either by supression of facts or by active participation in tempering with the record of the respondents. If the respondents have been in error, exclusively because of their own oversight, petitioner cannot be either blamed or deprived of the right, which has accused to him because of no fault of the petitioner. In this view I am supported by an authority of the Supreme Court, reported as 1989 (1) SCC, 399, wherein it has been held as under :- "University - Admission-Mistake -When a candidate concealed nothing from the University and authorities granted admission to him after considering all the relevant facts, held, he cannot be made to suffer by putting in abeyance or cancelling his admission after his joining the classes for the mistake committed by the authorities themselves in granting the admission on the basis of a resolution which was contrary to university statutes". 5. For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to issue the marks certificate of the petitioner in terms of notification No : 225/HSP-II (Private) Dec. 1995 dated 23.11.1996, wherein the petitioner has been shown to have passed the examination, forthwith. No order as to costs.