Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 45 (PAT)

Ranjeet Kumar v. V. C. , J. P. University

2006-01-12

body2006
ORDER Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the Jai Prakash University. 2. The petitioner has filed this application for a direction to the respondent Jai Prakash University to publish the result of petitioner of B.Sc. (Hons.) Math Examination of the Session 1999-2002, which has been withheld for some technical reason. 3. Admitted fact is that the petitioner is student of Jagdam College, Chapra and he has appeared in B.Sc. Part I of Session 1999-2001 examination in the year 2001. He passed in all subject but he had not cleared the Non-Hindi (English) Composition paper. He obtained only 11 marks in Non-Hindi (English) composition and in Hindi 24 marks. The total marks in both the papers were 33 but he was required to obtain at least 15 marks, in each paper, besides total 33 marks. Since he did not get 15 marks in Non-Hindi (English) Composition paper as such he could not have been declared passed. The mark-sheet which was issued in favour of the petitioner, is that in the remarks column he has been shown pass. Thereafter petitioner passed his second part of B.Sc. (Hons.) and also appeared in Part-III examination. Annexure-3 is the Tabulation chart from which it transpires that the petitioner has passed in 1st division in B.Sc. (Hons.) but his result is not being published. Reason for non-publication of the result is that in B.Sc. Part I in Non-Hindi Composition paper the petitioner did not obtain 15 marks which is the requisite pass marks. 4. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Jai Prakash University it transpires that this error was detected when the result of B.Sc. Part-III of the petitioner was being prepared. Thereafter the Examination Controller on the basis of the resolution taken decided that the petitioner will have to appear in Non-Hindi Composition paper in which he has failed in Part I. As per resolution/direction the petitioner has already appeared in the examination. It has been submitted in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit that in spite of that the petitioner's result is not being published. The reason for non-publication of the result is that the resolution of the Examination Controller, is against the University Regulation. It has been submitted in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit that in spite of that the petitioner's result is not being published. The reason for non-publication of the result is that the resolution of the Examination Controller, is against the University Regulation. Since the petitioner did not clear the paper within the stipulated period and failed to appear in the paper of Part-I examination, he will have to appear in the examination of all papers of B.Sc. Part I, unless petitioner re-appears in all papers and passes, his final result cannot be published. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on several decisions of this Court which have been passed in the identical facts of the case. The decisions are 2002(4) PLJR 10 , 2004(1) PLJR 260 and 2003(1) PLJR 28. In all these decisions directions have been issued for publication of result. 6. Counsel appearing for J.P. University has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ application on the ground that the petitioner has earlier moved before the Consumer Forum for the similar relief in which after filing of the show cause by the University the petitioner has withdrawn his application. In the given circumstances the filing of the writ application is barred by res judicata. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing the order passed by the Consumer Forum bearing case no. 124 of 2004. By order dated 19.7.2005 the petitioner was allowed to withdraw his application with liberty to file the writ application before this Court. Considering the fact that the liberty was given by the Consumer Forum I do not find that the writ application is barred by resjudicata or it is not maintainable. 7. So far the other objection which has been raised by the counsel appearing for J.P. University is that Annexure-6 is the order by which earlier mark-sheet of the petitioner in Part-I showing him passed has been cancelled but the same has not been challenged by the petitioner he cannot be allowed the relief prayed in this writ application. I find that these are the technicalities which cannot take place so far the question of equity is concerned. Admittedly the petitioner is not at fault if he has been shown pass in the mark-sheet issued by the University. I find that these are the technicalities which cannot take place so far the question of equity is concerned. Admittedly the petitioner is not at fault if he has been shown pass in the mark-sheet issued by the University. He was allowed to appear in all subsequent examination without any objection at the instance of University. As per the direction of the Examination Controller. Petitioner has already appeared in one paper in which he has been marked fail at the belated stage. For mere technicalities as the petitioner cannot be asked to appear in all the papers at this stage when he has been declared passed in subsequent examination. 8. Considering the career of the petitioner the respondents are directed to publish the result of the petitioner of B.Sc.(Hons.) Math Examination 2002 within two weeks from the date of production/communication of this order, provided the petitioner has cleared his Non-Hindi (English) composition of Part I, in which he has already appeared. 9. With the aforesaid direction/observation this application is disposed of.