Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 88 (ORI)

Samarendra Nath Dash v. Utkal University

2007-02-07

P.K.TRIPATHY, R.N.BISWAL

body2007
JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : The petitioner after obtaining B. Com. Degree from Calcutta University in the year 1983, got his name registered as a student under Utkal University his registration certificate number being 37091/91 and passed Post Graduate Diploma in Management in the year 1993, LL.B. in the year 1996 and Post Graduate Diploma in Chinese Studies in October 1998 from Utkal University. In order to appear M. Com Examination as a non-collegiate candidate in the year 1999 he filled up the applica¬tion form and complied with all formalities, but the Controller of Examination of Utkal University (opp.party No.2) returned the application with endorsement that since he had passed Two-years Degree in B. Com. Course from Calcutta University, he was not eligible to appear in M. Com. Examination. Being aggrieved with the rejection of his application the petitioner has filed the writ petition with prayer to direct the opp.parties to accept his application and to allow him to appear in M. Com Examination as a non-colle¬giate candidate. 2. Both opp.party Nos.1 and 2 in a joint counter affidavit contended that in order to be eligible to appear M. Com. Examina¬tion under Utkal University, one has to pass B.Com/B.A. (Econom¬ics Hons.) Examination from Utkal University or equivalent examination of any other University, recognized as such by the academic Council of Utkal University. The petitioner having passed Two-years Degree in B.Com. Course under Calcutta Universi¬ty which is not equivalent to B.Com. Degree under Utkal Universi¬ty, was not allowed to appear in M.Com. Examination. 3. Learned counsel for the opp.parties submitted that the petitioner has passed B. Com. Examination from Calcutta Universi¬ty which is a two years course. As per Notification No.AC/Recog./Gen./40/1318/91 dated 24.1.1991 of Utkal University, a copy of which is attached to the writ petition, B.A., B.Sc. and B.Com. Examinations under 10+2+3 pattern of the said University are equivalent to B.A./B.Sc. and B.Com. Examination of the same pattern of Calcutta University respectively. Since the petitioner has passed B.Com. Examination under 10+2+2 pattern from Calcutta University, he is not eligible to appear in the M.Com. Examina¬tion under Utkal University. So, the opp.parties rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Examinations under 10+2+3 pattern of the said University are equivalent to B.A./B.Sc. and B.Com. Examination of the same pattern of Calcutta University respectively. Since the petitioner has passed B.Com. Examination under 10+2+2 pattern from Calcutta University, he is not eligible to appear in the M.Com. Examina¬tion under Utkal University. So, the opp.parties rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Per contra learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was allowed to sit in the LL.B., Post Graduate Diploma in Chinese Studies and Post Graduate Diploma Management Examinations conducted by the Utkal University, on the basis of the B.Com. certificate issued in his favour by the Calcutta University, the opp.parties are estopped from pleading that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the M.Com. Examination. 4. There is no estoppel against the statutory Rules. When the Rules of Utkal University provides that one cannot appear in M.Com. Examination under Utkal University, unless he passed B.Com. Examination from the said University or some other Uni¬versity recognized by the Academic Council of Utkal University, as equivalent thereto, only because the petitioner was allowed to appear in LL.B., Post Graduate Diploma in Chinesse Studies and post Graduate Diploma in Management examinations due to the laches or wrong interpretation of any statutory provision, he cannot take advantage of the same and claim to be eligible to appear in M.Com. Examination. Even if the petitioner was allowed to appear in such examinations by mistake, that mistake cannot be allowed to perpetuate. Under such circumstances the writ petition stands dismissed. P. K. TRIPATHY, J. I agree Petition dismissed.