Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 970 (PAT)

Minakshi v. State Of Bihar

2002-09-05

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.7.2001 (Annexure-1) whereby her admission and registration to Masters Course and permission to appear in B.A. Part III examination has been rescinded. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner passed the Sahitya Alankar Examination conducted by Deoghar Vidyapeeth in the year 1997. In pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondent-Patna University (hereinafter referred to as the University) for admission in Master of Arts (Hindi) course, she offered her candidature and ultimately admitted in the said course in the Session 1998-2000. Equivalence of degree of Sahitya Alankar granted by Deoghar Vidyapeeth with that of B.A. (Hons.) degree granted by the University, came up for consideration before the Recognition Committee (Manyata Samiti) of the University in its meeting held on 10.2.2001. Said meeting of the Recognition Committee was presided over by the Vice Chancellor of the University and was attended by Pro Vice Chancellor, Registrar and other functionaries of the University. In the said meeting it was found that the degree of Sahitya Alankar granted by Deoghar Vldyapeeth is not equivalent to B. A. (Hons.) degree and on that account admission in the Master Course is not permissible. It further deprecated the conduct of the Head of the Department in taking admission of some of the students without the decision of the Recognition Committee. After observing so, the Committee decided to permit such students to appear in Masters examination who were admitted in the Masters course on the basis of Sahitya Alankar degree as one time exception on the condition that they pass 3rd year examination of B.A. (Hons.) in Hindi subject. The decision of the Recognition Committee was communicated to the Head of the Hindi Department by the Deputy Registrar of the University by its communication dated 3.4.2001 (Annexure-A). 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that instead of permitting her to pursue her studies in Masters course in terms of the decision of the Recognition-Committee dated 10.2.2001, by the impugned communication dated 10.7.2001, the admission and registration to Masters Course and permission to appear in the 3rd year examination have been rescinded. 4. Mr. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that instead of permitting her to pursue her studies in Masters course in terms of the decision of the Recognition-Committee dated 10.2.2001, by the impugned communication dated 10.7.2001, the admission and registration to Masters Course and permission to appear in the 3rd year examination have been rescinded. 4. Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned decision dated 10,7,2001 is in the teeth of the decision of the Recognition Committee taken on 10.2.2001 and on that ground alone the order impugned is fit to be set aside. Mr. Navin Sinha, however, appearing on behalf of the respondent-University submits that as the degree of Sahitya Alankar, Granted by Deoghar Vidyapeeth has not been found to be equivalent to B. A. (Hons.) degree, the respondent-University had cancelled the admission, registration and permission to appear in the 3rd year examination and its action can not be said to be illegal. 5. Having appreciated the rival submissions I find substance in the submissions of Sri Singh. The minutes of Recognition- Committee dated 10.2.2001 (Annexure-6) in no uncertain terms permits the petitioner to appear in the Masters Examination on the condition of her appearing in B.A.Part IlI (Hons.) Examination. Respondent-University has not placed on record any decision taken by the competent authority rescinding the decision of the Recognition Committee dated 1O.2.2001. In that view of the matter, the impugned communication dated 10.7.2001 (Annexure-1) is in the teeth of the decision of the Recognition Committee referred to above. On this ground alone, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. 6. It is expected that the respondent- University shall give benefit of this order to all the similarly situated students. This order may not be construed to mean that I have held that degree of Sahitya Alankar is equivalent to B.A. (Hons.) degree. 7. By an interim order petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination. The order impugned has been found to be bad in law. Hence her result be published in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the application is allowed, the order dated 10.7.2001 (Annexure-1) is quashed. in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.