Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1890 (PAT)

Anita Anamika v. Bhagalpur University

2007-12-12

V.N.SINHA

body2007
Judgment V.N.Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Tilkamanjhi Bhagalpur University (hereinafter referred to as "the University"). 2. Petitioner appeared in the B.A. Home Science (Honours) Examination Part-I, II and III from the University, as is evident from her Admit-Card, Annexure-3, 5 and 7 as also her mark-sheet issued by the University, Annexure-6 and by the Siddheshwari Badri Narayan (Degree) College, Munger dated 09.03.2005, Annexure-8. 3. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the authorities of the University to issue her final mark-sheet as also the original certificate indicating that she has passed B.A. Home Science (Honours) Examination from the University which prayer is being objected to by the University with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit as according to the University she secured only 22 marks in practical of Part-II which is one mark less than the pass marks 23 and as she has not passed the practical examination in Part-II, she is not eligible for the mark-sheet in view of Clause (15) of the Regulations framed by the University which inter alia does not permit grant of grace mark in Part-I and Part-II examinations as in terms of the Regulation grace mark is permissible only in Part-III examination. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties I am of the view that petitioner secured 22 marks in Practical examination of Part-II and failed by one mark, as such, she ought not to have been promoted to Part-III but ignoring the fact that she failed in practical examination of Part-II she was shown to have passed Part-II examination in the mark-sheet, Annexure-6 and then promoted to Part-III which examination she has also passed and after the petitioner has passed Part-II and Part-III examinations she is being told that she will not be given her mark-sheet as she failed in practical examination of part-II as in terms of Clause (15) of the Regulation she is not eligible for grant of grace mark, which is only given in Part-III. It is arbitrary on the part of the University authorities to have promoted the petitioner from Part-I to Part-II and thereafter to Part-III and to tell her at this belated stage that she cannot be given the mark-sheet as she failed in practical examination of Part-II. It is arbitrary on the part of the University authorities to have promoted the petitioner from Part-I to Part-II and thereafter to Part-III and to tell her at this belated stage that she cannot be given the mark-sheet as she failed in practical examination of Part-II. The University authorities were aware of the provisions contained in Clause (15) of the Regulation and when they noticed that she had failed in Practical examination of part-II they ought to have detained the petitioner in Part-II itself but once she has been promoted to Part-III which examination also she has cleared then at this belated stage she cannot be told that she cannot be given one grace mark in practical examination of Part-II and her prayer for grant of mark-sheet and certificate cannot be refused as according to this Court once she was promoted, whatever infirmity in the result of Part-II stood condoned. In this connection I refer to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishan V/s. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra reported in . 5. In the circumstances, I direct the University authorities to grant one grace mark to the petitioner in the practical examination of Part-II and thereafter to declare her final result and issue the required certificate as early as possible, in any case within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall deposit the required fee for grant of marks-sheet and the certificate and only on receipt of the fee the marks-sheet and the certificate shall be issued by the University authorities. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.