Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 842 (PAT)

Sohailyasin Ahmad v. Magadh University, Bodh Gaya

2002-08-05

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. In this writ application, prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents i.e. Magadh University to declare and publish the petitioners result of the B.Sc. (Botany Honours) Examination. Alternatively his prayer is to direct the respondents to permit him to appear in the Hindi composition subject for non-Hindi students in B.Sc. Part-II Examination. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that after passing the B.Sc. Part-I (Honours) Examination conducted by the Magadh University (for short the University) petitioner appeared in B.Sc. Part-ll (Honours) Examination 1997. His result was published and was declared pass although in the subject of Hindi composition for non-Hindi students, he had secured only 12 marks out of 50 marks for which pass mark is 15. Petitioner ultimately appeared in B.Sc. (Honours) Part-Ill Examination, 2000 which commenced from July, 2001 and the result of the said examination was declared in February, 2002 but his result was withheld. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 in which it has been stated that in the B.Sc. Part-ll Examination petitioner had secured only 12 marks in Hindi composition for non Hindi students and he was promoted to the next class with the condition that he will clear the subject within the prescribed period. It is their stand that the petitioner did not clear the subject within the prescribed period and in view of Regulation 7 of the Regulations for Bachelor of Science (General/Honours) Examination (Three Year Degree Course) petitioner having not passed B.Sc. Part-ll Examination, he was not entitled to appear in the B.Sc. Part-Ill examination. Accordingly, the stand of the respondent-University is that petitioner being not eligible to appear in B.Sc. Part-Ill examination, his result has rightly been withheld. 4. Mr. Md. Fazal Ahmad appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner appeared in B.Sc. Part-ll examination, 1997 and although he secured only 12 marks in Hindi composition for non-Hindi students, he was declared passed and at later stage the respondent-University cannot refuse to publish the result on the ground that petitioner had secured 12 marks in Hindi composition. Mr. Md. Fazal Ahmad appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner appeared in B.Sc. Part-ll examination, 1997 and although he secured only 12 marks in Hindi composition for non-Hindi students, he was declared passed and at later stage the respondent-University cannot refuse to publish the result on the ground that petitioner had secured 12 marks in Hindi composition. Mr. Kumar, however, appearing on behalf of the University submits that the petitioner was promoted to the next class with the condition that he will clear the subject within the prescribed period and the petitioner having not cleared the subject within the prescribed period, the very appearance of the petitioner in the B.Sc. Part-Ill examination is illegal and hence the respondent-University rightly did not publish the result of the petitioner. 5. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Sri Ahmad. From a perusal of the marksheet of the petitioner of B.Sc. Part-Ill (Annexure-3) it is evident that the petitioner was declared to have passed the examination. The stand of the respondent-University that the petitioner was promoted to the next class with the condition that he will clear the subject within the prescribed period is not borne out from the record. The marksheet does not show that the petitioner has been promoted but the same clearly shows that he had passed the examination. 6. Having answered the aforesaid submission, the next question which falls for determination is as to whether petitioner was rightly declared to have passed the B.Sc. Part-ll examination. In fairness to Sri Ahmad, I must state that he had conceded that in terms of the Regulation, petitioner ought not to have been declared pass but should have been declared to have been promoted but he submits that the respondent-University ought to have allowed the petitioner to appear in the B.Sc. Part-Ill examination and having once allowed to appear, his result is not fit to be withheld. He points out that in view of the Regulation of the University, if the appearance of the petitioner in the examination of B.Sc. Part-Ill is treated as illegal and result not published, petitioner shall have to appear in all the examinations of B.Sc. Part-I, II and III and the same shall be highly inequitable. Mr. He points out that in view of the Regulation of the University, if the appearance of the petitioner in the examination of B.Sc. Part-Ill is treated as illegal and result not published, petitioner shall have to appear in all the examinations of B.Sc. Part-I, II and III and the same shall be highly inequitable. Mr. Kumar, however, submits that the respondent-University is bound by its Regulation and as such the result of the petitioner has rightly withheld and the same cannot be published. 7. Having given my most anxious consideration to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that it shall be inequitable to force the petitioner to appear in all the examinations i.e. B.Sc. Part I, II and III. As stated earlier, the marksheet of the petitioner does not indicate that he was promoted to the higher class on the ground that he had not secured pass marks in Hindi composition but the same clearly shows that he had passed B.Sc. part-II examination. Thereafter the petitioner was allowed to appear in B.Sc. Part-Ill examination and only at the time of publication of the result the question arose as to whether petitioner was eligible to appear in B.Sc. Part-Ill examination and then it was found that he was not eligible. In a situation like this, I am of the opinion that equity demands that the petitioner be allowed to appear in the subject of Hindi composition for non-Hindi students of B.Sc. Part-ll in the ensuing examination and in case he passes in the said subject, his result for B.Sc. Part-Ill examination be published. 8. During the course of hearing, a feeble attempt was made by the counsel for the petitioner that result of the petitioner of B.Sc. Part-Ill be declared without asking the petitioner to pass in the Hindi composition examination of B.Sc. Part-ll. I am not inclined to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is common ground that in terms of the Regulation petitioner was not eligible to appear in the B.Sc. Part-Ill. If his result is declared and he is found to have passed, it would result into an absurd situation i.e. a student who had not passed the B.Sc. Part-ll examination shall be declared to have passed the B.Sc. Part-Ill examination. While balancing equity this has to be avoided. 9. Part-Ill. If his result is declared and he is found to have passed, it would result into an absurd situation i.e. a student who had not passed the B.Sc. Part-ll examination shall be declared to have passed the B.Sc. Part-Ill examination. While balancing equity this has to be avoided. 9. In the fact of the present case, I am of the opinion that it shall be just and equitable to direct the respondent-University to permit the petitioner to appear in the B.Sc. Part-ll examination of Hindi composition and in case he is declared pass on this subject to publish his result of B.Sc. Part-Ill. Writ application stands allowed in the aforesaid term.