Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 249 (RAJ)

Manoj Kumar Garg v. State of Rajasthan

2006-01-24

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2006
Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-The petitioner Manoj Kumar Garg, aged 24 years, has passed his Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com) Examination in the year 2001 from Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer securing 62.11% marks (vide marks sheet Annexure P/4). The petitioner filled up the form for taking admission in additional optional subject prescribed for the Bachelor of Arts (BA) Examination namely, English Literature, and deposited requisite fees on 112.2004 (vide receipt Annexure P/5) with Swami Keshwanand Mahavidyalaya, G.V. Sangaria affiliated to the Bikaner University, Bikaner (`the University hereinafter). However, the permission sought by the petitioner to appear in the additional subject examination of BA was refused by the University by its letter dated 23.02.2005 (Annexure P/7) on the ground that he had passed his graduation from other faculty (B Com). 2. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 10.03.2005 with the submissions that the denial of permission to appeal in the examination was plainly contrary to the provisions of Ordinance 203(8)(i) and was discriminatory too inasmuch as another candidate having taken her Bachelor of Science (B Sc) degree in the year 1999 was permitted to appear in such Bachelor of Arts additional Examination of 2004 in the subject of English Literature. The petitioner further contended that taking up of such examination was recognised by the State Government and a candidate having passed his graduation in Commerce or Science stream was also eligible to apply for the post of Senior Teacher (English/Mathematics) upon passing any such additional subject examination. The petitioner referred to a notification Annexure P/3 issued by the Deputy Director, Education for recruitment to such posts of Senior Teachers. 3. This writ petition was taken up for consideration on 11.03.2005 and while issuing notices for final disposal, this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to take the said examination of BA English Literature. The petitioner thereafter moved an application on 13.09.2005 pointing out that in pursuance of the order dated 11.03.2005, he was allotted Roll No. 119578 but he could not take up the paper scheduled on 11.03.2005 itself , although he was permitted to appear in all subsequent papers of this additional subject. The result of BA Additional Examination conducted by the Bikaner University was published on 12.08.2005 but the result of the petitioner was not declared and the supplementary examination of the University were scheduled to be held from 26.09.2005. The result of BA Additional Examination conducted by the Bikaner University was published on 12.08.2005 but the result of the petitioner was not declared and the supplementary examination of the University were scheduled to be held from 26.09.2005. The petitioner prayed for directions to the respondents for permitting him to appear in the supplementary examination for left out paper of English Literature (Paper-I). This Court granted such permission to the petitioner without raising any equity in his favour by the order dated 16.09.2005. 4. The petitioner has arrayed the State of Rajasthan, the Registrar, Bikaner University, the Controller (Examination), Bikaner University; and the Principal, Swami Keshwanand Mahavidyalaya, G.V. Sangaria, in that order, as respondents in this writ petition. The Respondents No. 2 and 3 of the Bikaner University have submitted in their reply that the contents of Ordinance 203(8)(i) as quoted by the petitioner were admitted but besides that, Ordinance 243 was required to be read which provides that any candidate who has passed B Com (Pass Honours) Examination of the University would be entitled to present himself for examination in any subsequent years in one of the optional subjects prescribed for BCom Examination. According to the respondents, although the petitioner filled up the form for taking admission in the optional subject prescribed for B A i.e. English Literature, however, he was not entitled to get admission in a faculty which is different than his original faculty i.e., B Com. Relying squarely on Ordinance 243, the contesting respondents have contended that the form of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. According to the respondents, Ordinance 203(8)(i) is required to read with Ordinance 243 "for drawing correct and just inference". 5. A separate reply has been submitted on behalf of the Director, College Education with the averments that the Colleges function as per the directives and instructions issued by the University and if a candidate, is debarred from the examination, it is within the domain of the University and the Colleges have no jurisdiction to interfere in such matters. According to this reply, in the instant case, no prior information was sent by the University that the candidates who had their graduation from the streams other than BA were not eligible for BA (English Literature), therefore, the answering respondent could not be held liable and that the grievance raised by the petitioner could only be remedied by the Bikaner University. 6. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the contesting respondent University have made their submissions in conformity with their respective stands as taken in the writ petition and the reply. 7. Having heard, learned Counsel for the parties and having examined the material produced on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the attempted denial by the University to the petitioner from appearing in BA additional subject Examination, 2005 by the letter dated 25.02.2005 (Annexure P/7) was absolutely unjust, illegal, arbitrary and nothing less than mala fide. 8. The University has attempted to justify its action of refusing permission to the petitioner to appear in the additional subject in BA (English Literature) on the ground that he had obtained his graduation in a different stream, i.e., Commerce, and, therefore, he could not appear in the Arts stream and for that purpose Ordinance 243 has been relied upon; and it has been contended by the University that the two Ordinances i.e., 203(8)(i) and 243 ought to be read together for proper interpretation. The two Ordinance as quoted by the respective parties in the petition and the reply may be put in juxtaposition as under : - 203(8 )(i) 243 Any candidate, who has passed BA (Pass)/BA Hons.)/ BSc (Pass)/B.Sc. (Hons.)/B. Sc. (Ag)/B.Com (Pass)/B.Com. (Hons.)/B.F.A./B.Sc. Home Science Examination of the University under 10+2+3 pattern shall be allowed to present himself for examination in any subsequent year in any one of the optional subjects prescribed for the BA Examination (10+2+3 pattern) and not already taken by him at the degree examination and he is not registered for any other examination of the University in the same year, and if successful, will be given a certificate to that effect. Such a candidate shall be required to appear in all the papers of that subject in one and the same year. Any candidate, who has passed the B.Com (Pass Honours) Examination of this University an examination recognised by the University as equivalent thereto, shall be allowed to present himself for the examination in any subsequent years in any one of the optional subjects prescribed for the B.Com Examination and if successful, will be given a certificate to that effect. Any candidate, who has passed the B.Com (Pass Honours) Examination of this University an examination recognised by the University as equivalent thereto, shall be allowed to present himself for the examination in any subsequent years in any one of the optional subjects prescribed for the B.Com Examination and if successful, will be given a certificate to that effect. Such a candidate shall be required to appear in all the papers of the subject in one and the same year provided that he is not registered for any other examination of the University in the same year. (emphasis supplied) 9. A naked eye-view of the two ordinances as quoted hereinabove is sufficient to find that the stand taken by the University is absolutely preposterous and cannot be treated to be even a bona fide stand. Ordinance 203(8)(i) specifically deals with permission to appear in the additional subject of Bachelor of Arts Examination and taking up of such examination is open to the candidates of all streams of BA, B.Sc. and B.Com., whether Pass course or Honours course, and even of Agriculture and Home Science specialities. Ordinance 243, on the other hand, deals only with permission to appear in B.Com. additional subjects; and it seems that appearance in the additional subjects of B.Com. Examination has been restricted to the graduates of that stream of Commerce alone. 10. Ordinance 243 has nothing to do with the petitioners case who sought permission to appear in the additional subject of BA viz., English Literature. 11. It is rather surprising that the University has chosen to ignore the Ordinance 203(8)(i) and to put an absolutely unwarranted interpretation which stands squarely contrary to plain and unambiguous grammatical meaning of Ordinance of 203(8)(i). To be worth its name, a University is supposed to be a centre of dissemination of knowledge and learning; and it is rather painful to notice that an absurd proposition has been put forward by none other than the University itself with reference to a provision which has got absolutely no relevance. 12. This Court would not believe the action on the part of the University to be a case of bona fide error of Judgment or interpretation because of any ambiguity. It cannot be believed that the plain simple words of its own Ordinance cannot be read and understood by a University. 12. This Court would not believe the action on the part of the University to be a case of bona fide error of Judgment or interpretation because of any ambiguity. It cannot be believed that the plain simple words of its own Ordinance cannot be read and understood by a University. The action on the part of the University remains highly improper and is a sad commentary on the attitude of the University, who is entrusted with the task of grooming the career prospects of young citizens of the country. 13. High-handedness on the part of the University is further highlighted with reference to the example of another candidate as placed by the petitioner on record, who had took her Bachelor of Science degree from the same University from which the petitioner did his B Com. The said candidate Miss Anjali Monga had been permitted to appear in BA Additional Examination of 2004 in English Literature and had been declared pass as evidenced from the marks sheet Annexure P/2 issued by the present respondent Bikaner University. The averments taken by the petitioner in that regard in Paragraph 4 of the writ petition and the gorunds of discrimination as set forth in ground (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the writ petition have been replied in an evasive manner. In any case, the respondent University could dare not deny the fact that the said candidate coming from Science stream was permitted to appear in BA (English Literature) Additional Examination. Such permission has apparently been given with reference to Ordinance 203(8) and rightly so. It is beyond comprehension as to how and why the petitioner was picked up to be refused similar treatment?. Even at the cost of repetition, it is required to be emphasized that reference to Ordinance 243 is absolutely misplaced inasmuch as the said Ordinance deals only with B Com Additional Examination and NOT BA Additional Examination. 14. It is beyond comprehension as to how and why the petitioner was picked up to be refused similar treatment?. Even at the cost of repetition, it is required to be emphasized that reference to Ordinance 243 is absolutely misplaced inasmuch as the said Ordinance deals only with B Com Additional Examination and NOT BA Additional Examination. 14. From the advertisement Annexure P/3, it is moreover apparent that the State Government has also recognised acquiring of qualification in a particular subject like English, by the graduates of other streams, for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Lecturer in English as it has been provided in explicit terms : - Þ¼ch½ ;fn vH;FkhZ okf.kT; ;k foKku ladk; ;k nksuksa esa Lukrd mikf/k izkIr gks rFkk vfrfjDr fo"k; ds :i esa fu/kkZfjr fo"k; esa Lukrd Lrj dh ;ksX;rk izkIr dj yh gks] rks ofj"B v/;kid ¼fo"k;kuqlkj½ ds in gsrq ;fn vU; krsZa iw.kZ djrs gSa rks ik= gksaxsAß 15. It is apparent that the petitioner applied for such Additional Examination for his better career prospects with reference to Ordinance 203(8)(i) and it was highly improper on the part of the University to have refused permission to the petitioner and to have driven him to this unnecessary litigation; and then to have attempted justification by putting distorted meaning to its Ordinances. Such irresponsible attitude, on the part of the University, cannot be appreciated. Impugned action deserves to be quashed. 16. This Court, taking note of the fact situation of the present case, has already permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination and it shall be required of the University to declare his result immediately. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, where the petitioner was unnecessarily driven to this litigation and then the University attempted to justify its ill-conceived action with reference to an absolutely irrelevant provision, the present one is a fit case for awarding of costs to the petitioner. 17. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed; the impugned letter dated 25.02.2005 (Annexure P/7) is quashed; the action of the respondent University denying permission to the petitioner to appear in BA (English Literature) Additional Examination is declared illegal, arbitrary and so also mala fide. Interim orders passed in this writ petition on 11.03.2005 and 16.09.2005 permitting the petitioner to appear in the said examination are made absolute. Interim orders passed in this writ petition on 11.03.2005 and 16.09.2005 permitting the petitioner to appear in the said examination are made absolute. The respondent University is directed to declare the result of the examination taken by the petitioner immediately upon receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to, and the respondent University shall be liable for, the costs of this petition quantified at Rs. 2,200/-. Needless to say that the University shall be entitled to recover the amount of costs from the persons responsible therefor.