Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 13 (HP)

SHERMISTHA v. H. P. UNIVERSITY

2003-01-10

K.C.SOOD, KAMLESH SHARMA

body2003
JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, ACJ. - The petitioner is a student. She has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) Respondents may very kindly be directed to declare the result of the petitioner of third and fourth semesters forthwith without any further delay and in case petitioner has failed to pass any of the papers, she further be allowed to appear in the examinations being concluded by the respondents in the second week of December, 2002 as per law to secure the ends of law and justice." 2. The facts in brief arising out of the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner joined the respondent University as student for two years Master of Arts degree in 1999 against registration No. 99-CC-MI-366. She passed the first and second semesters of M.A. Hindi during the year 1999-2000. Thereafter, she migrated from this University to Chhattarpati Sahwaji University, Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh to pursue her B. Ed. Course. She was allowed to migrate and she passed the B. Ed. Course in August, 2001. 3. Thereafter she applied for admission in M.A. Hindi for third and fourth semesters and was permitted to appear in the examinations held in November/December, 2001 and June, 2002, respectively. She appeared in the said examinations but her result was not declared. Assuming that she had not passed in third and fourth semesters, she again submitted her forms for re-appearing in the examination, which were returned to her vide letter dated 30.4.2002, Annexure P-4 to the rejoinder along with bank draft of Rs.1520/- on the ground that she had not appeared in the examination of third semester and stood migrated from the University; The petitioner personally visited the University, made representation dated 16.5.2002, Annexure P-5 and submitted migration certificate from Chhattarpati Sahwaji University for 3-registration and deposited the requisite fee. According to the petitioner, having been satisfied, the University issued roll number to the petitioner for appearing in third and fourth semesters to be held by the University. 4. The stand of the University is that the permission to appear in third and fourth semesters examination was provisional and subject to production of migration certificate. According to the petitioner, having been satisfied, the University issued roll number to the petitioner for appearing in third and fourth semesters to be held by the University. 4. The stand of the University is that the permission to appear in third and fourth semesters examination was provisional and subject to production of migration certificate. It is pointed out that the petitioner while submitting her admission form for third and fourth semesters did not disclose that she had already migrated to another University for pursuing her B. Ed, course and the column "Registration No. of H.P. University" was kept blank. On her migration to Chhattarpati Sahwaji University, Kanpur, she had severed her relation with the H.P. University and without getting herself re-registered, she could not appear in third and fourth semesters under the old registration number and old ICDEOL/class roll number. Therefore, the University was within its right to with old and even cancel the result of the petitioner for third and fourth semesters for which she had managed to appear by concealing certain material facts and without getting herself- reregistered with the University as per the University Ordinances. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. First of all, we will refer to the relevant provisions of ordinance. Ordinance 2.5 pertains to registration number. It is :- "2.5 Registration Number: - Every student of the University shall be supplied a Registration number, and in all correspondence with the University in respect of that student his registration number shall be quoted. This registration number shall be mentioned in application for admissions to examination of the University." Ordinance 2.6 provide for lapse of registration. It is: "2.6 Lapse of registration: The registration of a student, who migrates to joint another University or is rusticated or expelled from the University shall lapse, and shall not been renewed till the student applies for re-registration within two months of his being allowed to re-join the University." 7. As per this Ordinance, for renewing the lapsed registration, a student is required to apply for re-registration within two months of his being allowed to rejoin the University. It appears that without rejoining the course, the petitioner applied for appearing in the examination of third and fourth semesters. As per this Ordinance, for renewing the lapsed registration, a student is required to apply for re-registration within two months of his being allowed to rejoin the University. It appears that without rejoining the course, the petitioner applied for appearing in the examination of third and fourth semesters. Had she applied for rejoining the course, the Director, Correspondence Courses would have intimated the Controller of Examinations for recording the said fact in the Register of Students as provided under Ordinance 2.4. The Register of Students is maintained under Ordinance 2.3. 8. It has not been the case of the University that the petitioner is not eligible for re-admission to the M.A. course for which the only condition is production of migration certificate as provided under Ordinance 3.8. After receipt of the migration certificate submitted alongwith her representation dated 16.5.2002, the University was required to decide about the re-registration of the petitioner before issuing her roll number for re-appearing in the third and fourth semester which shows that thereafter the University had no serious objection to the petitioner rejoining the University and appearing in the third and fourth semesters of M.A. course in Hindi. 9. For his submission, that the petitioner could not be permitted to appear in third and fourth semesters after her migration to Kanpur University, the learned Counsel for the University has relied upon Annexure R-1 to the reply affidavit, which is an extract to item 41 of EC meeting held on 31.3.1976 in respect of migration from H.P. University to another University. In para 3 of Annexure R-1 it is stated that once a candidate has been allowed migration he shall no longer be allowed to appear in an examination of this University, except to clear his reappear/compartment, if any. This decision of the Executive Council is to be read with Ordinances 2.5 and 2.6 which make it clear that after migration to another University, a student cannot be allowed to appear in the examination of the H.P. University except to clear his reappear/compartment, but if he is re-registered on his re-migration to H.P. University as provided under Ordinance 2.4 to 2.6, there is no bar to continue his studies/course and appear in the examination. Learned Counsel for the University has not been able to point out any other such provision to the contrary. 10. Learned Counsel for the University has not been able to point out any other such provision to the contrary. 10. So far the limitation to pass M.A. course is concerned, there is no limitation of period for a private candidate or student of correspondence courses as provided under Ordinance 8.44. 11. In these facts and circumstances, we do not find any bar or prohibition in the Ordinance for permitting the petitioner to appear in the third and fourth semester examination when she has already submitted her migration certificate from Kanpur University and deposited the requisite fee. In fact when the petitioner had filed the writ petition, she had already been issued roll number for re-appearing in the third and fourth semesters examination and it was also not mentioned in the roll number slips (Annexures P-7 and P-8) that these were provisional, as now submitted by the University in its reply-affidavit to this petition and the cause of action to file the writ petition was only that her result for the third and fourth semesters examination held in November/December, 2001 and June, 2002 was not declared. Therefore, she had prayed for the declaration of the said result and sought permission to re-appear if she has failed in the said examinations. 12. From the stand of the University, it is clear that since the petitioner had not submitted her migration certificate from Kanpur University and she was not re-registered and had appeared under the old registration number, her result for third and fourth semesters was not declared. Now when she has submitted her migration certificate, there seems to be no impediment to declare her result of third and fourth semesters and if she has failed, to permit her re-appear under the roll number already issued to her (Annexures P-7 and P-8). 13. Therefore, it is ordered that the petitioner will be re-registered and her result will be declared within a period of two days from today and if she has failed, she will be permitted to re-appear in these examinations under the roll number already issued to her. The writ petition is disposed of in these terms. Costs easy.