Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1129 (PAT)

Sunil Kumar v. Patna University

2008-08-08

body2008
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the University. 2. Despite adjournment granted for the purpose and unconcerned with the urgency of the issue of admission of the petitioner affecting his educational and career prospects, the University has not even bothered to file a counter affidavit. 3. The petitioner came to this Court seeking a direction for admission in the B.C.A. vocational part-3 course for the session 2007-2008. He fairly acknowledges that he could not get admission in the aforesaid course till he cleared all the papers of the 1st part. That he had unfortunately not cleared 1st year Mathematics papers and failed only by four marks. On 28.7.2007 he applied for scrutiny. The University took an inordinately long time for scrutiny of his marks and at its own leisure declared him pass on 10.12.2007. Valuable time for the petitioner was thus lost for the session 2007-2008. Had the University acted in time, perhaps, a year of the career of the petitioner could have been saved. The session for B.C.A. vocational 3rd year has ended in February, 2008 and the examinations have also been held in March, 2008. The petitioner has, therefore, stated that the University has granted him permission for admission to the session 2008-2009. 4. The petitioner is now left with no option except to be at the mercy of the University. 5. The University was the temple of learning to which the petitioner came to learn. If the temple is defiled by those inside the temple, there is little that the petitioner can do. 6. In view of the admission having been granted to the petitioner, as claimed, for the session 2008-2009, no further orders are required from the Court. 7. This Court, however, considers it proper to impose costs of Rs.10,000/- on the Patna University to be paid to the petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Vice-Chancellor of the University. 8. The Vice-Chancellor is given liberty to initiate an enquiry to fix the responsibility and then recover the costs from the personal salary of the erring officials. 9. Let the Vice-Chancellor file his affidavit of compliance within a period of three months when the matter shall be listed for perusal under the heading "Orders".