Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 87 (JK)

Nusrat Jehan Tabasum v. University Of Kashmir

2003-04-15

SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2003
On consensual submissions of the counsel for the parties the interim as also the main matter is taken up for final disposal. Admit. The post admission notices is accepted by Mr. Kawoosa who has been representing the respondents althrough. On the statement of Mr. Kawoosa reply filed by respondents at pre-admission stage is taken reply even at this post-admission stage. Heard. Petitioner who was to clear a one back log paper in B. A Final examination applied for admission to B.Ed. course in south Kashmir Teachers Training College, Pampore (SKTTC) affiliated with University of Kashmir for the session beginning June, 1996. She was admitted to the course. While prosecuting the course she cleared the back log paper in October session 1996. Her admission to the B.Ed. course in the college was confirmed and she was treated as regular candidate. At the end of completion of B.Ed. course/ programme, the petitioner after filling up the admission form to the examination appeared in the session May-June, 1997. She was allotted Roll No. and allowed to take the examination without any objection. She appeared in theory examination as also in practice of teaching conducted by the university. However, when the results of the B.Ed. examination was declared in March-April 1998 she and another candidate one Mymoona Akhter similarly placed and identically situated as the petitioner approached University and the University after verification of the records cleared their disputed eligibility and both were declared eligible and the results as declared in the notification of the University showed that the petitioner had failed in two papers. She took steps and submits the form after being duly filled in and complete other formalities for permission to reappear in the backlog papers. However, her case cleared and certified. She appeared in the examination but again failed in the paper while having by that time cleared the other seven papers. She again applied and filled the form for taking the examination in the paper. However, this time the University raised objection to her eligibility initially to join the B.Ed. course without having completed the B.A. Examination in full. The circumstances as given above and the actions of the respondents of having admitted her to B.Ed. training course and allowed her to appear in the examinations issued eligibility certificate for subsequent B.Ed. However, this time the University raised objection to her eligibility initially to join the B.Ed. course without having completed the B.A. Examination in full. The circumstances as given above and the actions of the respondents of having admitted her to B.Ed. training course and allowed her to appear in the examinations issued eligibility certificate for subsequent B.Ed. examination, were brought to the notice of the University yet she was not allowed to take the examination in the last back-log paper (paper 3rd of B.Ed. Course examination). The only alternative left to the petitioner was to come up with this petition with the prayer for the sought relief of her being permitted to take the examination after being admitted to the B.Ed. course declaration of result and any other relief the court deems just and proper. Respondents in reply have not denied the admittance of petitioner to B.Ed. course in SKTT, College in March 1996. It is not also denied that the petitioner reappeared in the back log paper of Education in the B.A. Final examination, after her admittance to and while prosecuting the B.Ed. course. It is also admitted that though the petitioner and Maymoona who was identically placed and similarly, situated as the petitioner, were not initially allowed to appear in the B.Ed. Examination in 1997 but "a lenient view as taken and they were allowed to appear in the examination provisionally." Thereafter petitioner was also allowed to appear in subsequent examination to clear the back-log papers. Notwithstanding that petitioner and many other candidates admission to the course and allowed to attend the classes, fill up the examination forms, permitted to take the examination even in the back-log papers. Mr. Kawoosa admits that it is the University of Kashmir who admitted the petitioner and other similarly circumstanced and identically placed candidates to B.Ed. Course examination after their admittance to the course by the respective colleges and in this case SKTT, College. Mr. Kawoosa also concedes that even when petitioner failed to clear all the 8 papers of B.Ed. course her case was cleared by the University and even eligibility certificate was issued to her and a lenient view was taken to allow her to take the examination. Petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination and complete the other 7 papers of the course during the period of over 3 to 4 years. course her case was cleared by the University and even eligibility certificate was issued to her and a lenient view was taken to allow her to take the examination. Petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination and complete the other 7 papers of the course during the period of over 3 to 4 years. It was only when she approached the University for clearance of her case for taking examination in the last back-log paper (paper 3rd of the B.Ed. course), the university raised question of her initial eligibility to the B.Ed. course. In these circumstances can it be the case of University that the university should contest this case where the candidate should not be allowed to appear in last paper of B.Ed. examination when it has allowed the candidate to appear in other seven papers of the B.Ed. Course without any objection. The answer is clearly no. It is the college that has admitted the petitioner to the B.Ed. course but it is the university that has allowed her to take examination over several years in main examination as also in subsequent examination to clear the papers including back-log papers after issuing her eligibility clearance certificate. It is not a case where petitioner has not qualified the B. A. Course before taking examination in the B.Ed. Petitioner has by now appeared in all the papers and seven papers have been already cleared. In the 8th paper she also appeared and the result was awaited. It is unjust to deny petitioner to appear in the said back log paper and to refuse to declare her result. In facts and circumstances of this case, Ld. Counsel for University concedes that from any angle result merits to be declared . It is of interest to note that the respondents have not taken any steps whatsoever even to vacate the directions of this Court regarding admittance of the petitioner to examination of the Backlog 3rd paper. Petitioner has by now taken examination in all the papers. In such circumstances to dislodge the petitioner at this stage from the course and the examination is unjust. The entitlement and admittance of the petitioner to the B.Ed. course seen through the conduct of the respondents cannot be said to be a manipulation or an Instance where jurisdiction and discretion of the court is reduced to "private benevolence. In such circumstances to dislodge the petitioner at this stage from the course and the examination is unjust. The entitlement and admittance of the petitioner to the B.Ed. course seen through the conduct of the respondents cannot be said to be a manipulation or an Instance where jurisdiction and discretion of the court is reduced to "private benevolence. In State of J&K v. Radhika Nargotra and Others (1993 SLJ 257), a Division Bench of this Court observed that even where provisional admission was granted to the candidate in MBBS course who completed MBBS during the pendency of the writ and further respondents having failed to take any steps for vacation of the order, the petitioner cannot be dislodged after completion of the course. In AIR 1990 SC:1220, it has been observed:- "Since the respondent students stand already admitted and the more meritorious students cannot now avail of the seats given to the respondents due to lapse of time, we do not propose to interfere with their pursuit of the course and dismiss the appeals. The petitioners Counsel has also cited Gh. Mohd. Khan v. University of Kashmir OWP No. 357/01 decided on 9.5.2002 for submission that writ deserved to be allowed as petitioner of that writ was in almost in like circumstances allowed to complete the course and to obtain the degree for the B.Ed. course. In the above view of the matter, this petition succeeds, in as much as, admittance of the petitioner to the B.Ed. course and her appearance and taking examination in the B.Ed. course is regularized and the University shall declare her result and if she has qualified the final examination of the course, issue her a qualification certificate as also the degree, provided she otherwise earns such certificate/degree under law and rules applicable in the field. Disposed of alongwith connected IAs.