Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 122 (ALL)

Kumari Sunita Gupta v. State of U. P.

2008-01-17

RAKESH TIWARI

body2008
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri R. S. Baghel, learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 and 3. 2. This petition has been filed for redressal of the grievance by the Court to the effect that the University is not accepting the examination form and fee for session examination 2006 and 2007, thus restraining them from appearing in the examination scheduled to have commenced from 28.5.2007. 3. The Court by order dated 1.6.2007 allowed the Petitioners to take their examination in B. Sc. in B.P.E. for the respective session. It further directed that their result shall not be declared till further orders of this Court. 4. This petition has come up today on listing Application No. 292713 of 2007 moved by the Petitioner on 10.12.2007. Counter-affidavit alongwith Stay Application No. 150861 of 2007 has been filed on 5th July, 2007 by the University. Rejoinder-affidavit has already been filed on 27.7.2007. 5. The brief facts culled out from the record are that Sri Narhehi Mahavidyalaya Narhi (Rasara) district Ballia is affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. The course of Shiksha Evam Swasthya Shiksha was granted temporary recognition vide order dated 16.11.1999 appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the aforesaid orders it was not clear as to the recognition was given to the aforesaid course in Art stream or in the Science stream. The order dated 16.11.1999 is as under: other language 6. Thereafter the Chancellor granted permanent recognition to the aforesaid course on 23.10.2006 specifying that the recognition is now being granted in Art stream to the students. The order dated 23.10.2006 is as under: other language 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that those students, who have appeared in the examination have been granted degree from science and it was not clear in the official letter dated 16.11.1999 of recognition as to whether the Petitioners are to have appeared from Science or from Arts stream it was presumed by the college that these students have been admitted in the science stream and accordingly they have studied in two years, hence they should be permitted to appear in the examination. 8. 8. From the aforesaid two letters dated 16.11.1999 and 23.10.2006 quoted in the body of the petition, it is apparent that the dispute has been brought into existence by the letter dated 23.10.2006 issued subsequently specifying that the degree in Shiksha Evam Swasthya Shiksha course would be of arts stream which was not a condition when temporary affiliation had been granted to the institute. 9. In the undisputed facts that the students, hence appeared in the examination of Shiksha Evam Swasthya Shiksha in Part I and Part II examination conducted by the University and now are to appear in examination scheduled to be held in 2008 cannot be restrained by University on ground that permanent recognition is being granted to them for Arts faculty. 10. Sri Sudhakar Pandey appearing for the Respondents has very clearly submitted that the students may be permitted to appear in the examinations scheduled in year 2008. The degree awarded by the University may be in science or in Arts but it has to be awarded if the students, who successfully complete the course. 11. Since the career of the students is based upon the degree and University has taken stand in the counter-affidavit of paras 10 and 11, they are not awarding B. Sc. in B.P.E. degree course, the only option is that the students be allowed to appear in the examination of Shiksha Evam Swasthya Shiksha course and awarded the degree recognised by the University in terms of permanent recognition. 12. For the reason stated above, the University shall take examination of these students within a period of two months from today. It is open for the Vice Chancellor to pass appropriate orders for examination of the Petitioners and fix date of examination by him. It is, however, provided that college will not take any admission for this course in science stream henceforth as it is not recognised and will take admission only in terms of the permanent recognition dated 23rd October, 2006. The students, who will take admission in the said course henceforth shall also be covered by this judgment. 13. It is clarified that the writ petition is accordingly allowed only in respect of the Petitioners, who has filed the petition. 14. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.