Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 624 (JHR)

Bhupesh Kumar Sah v. Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University

2008-06-23

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
Order In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to publish his result allowing the marks in Vllth paper of B.Sc. Physics (Hons.) 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was a student of B.Sc. Physics (Hons.) in session 2000-03. He had appeared in Part-III final examination of the said course in the year 2005. The results of the examination were published, but the petitioner's result was not published. In the cross-list, it was mentioned that the result was pending. However, after publication of result, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner asking him as to why appropriate order be not passed for interpolation of the answer sheet of VII paper of B.Sc. Physics (Hons.). The petitioner, thereafter, filed his reply denying interpolation, but the respondents have not published the result even after submission of the reply by the petitioner. The petitioner has, thus, approached this Court for a direction as aforementioned. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf Sidhu Kanhu Murmu University (University for short) contesting this writ petition and stating, inter alia, that while examining, the answer-sheets of several candidates including the petitioner were found interpolated. The matter was reported to the University. The University constituted an Enquiry Committee, which found that answer-sheets of several candidates including that of the petitioner were interpolated. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to the concerned candidates including the petitioner. They filed their explanation. After considering the explanation, the University issued an order for withholding the result of the petitioner and debarring for one year, but they are allowed to appear in the next examination. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had written his answer on the answer-sheet provided by the center and that the same was not interpolated by the petitioner. The allegation that the petitioner interpolated the answer-sheet is wholly false and baseless. It has been submitted that without any material to support interpolation, the said decision for debarring one year has been arbitrarily taken which is, wholly illegal and unjust. The University is legally bound to publish the petitioner's result by allowing marks in VII paper. 5. Mr. S. Piprawall, appearing on behalf of the University, submitted that the decision of the University is not arbitrary; rather the same is based on enquiry. The University is legally bound to publish the petitioner's result by allowing marks in VII paper. 5. Mr. S. Piprawall, appearing on behalf of the University, submitted that the decision of the University is not arbitrary; rather the same is based on enquiry. The petitioner was also given opportunity to file reply to the show cause, but his reply was not found satisfactory. The University has taken lenient view and has allowed the petitioner to appear in the next examination. There is no arbitrariness or illegality on the part of the University in debarring the petitioner for one year as the said. order was passed on the basis of the enquiry when the petitioner was found guilty of interpolating answer-sheet. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. 7. The only ground, as has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the finding of the Enquiry Committee that the petitioner interpolated answer-sheet is not correct and the same is wholly arbitrary. The' University, on the other hand, has come with the plea that the answer-sheet has been found interpolated by the Enquiry Committee. Since the controversy between the parties is dispute of fact, the same cannot be adjudicated upon and decided in writ jurisdiction of this Court. If the petitioner disputes the correctness of the finding on factual basis, he can approach the appropriate Forum. However, in the nature of the dispute and the controversy, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in writ jurisdiction. 8. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. Dismissal of the writ petition shall not prejudice consideration of the petition-er’s-grievance by an appropriate Forum.