Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1696 (PAT)

Puja Pushkar Jha v. State Of Bihar

2010-07-29

NAVIN SINHA

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Patna University. 2. The petitioner was student of the Bachelor of Business Administration course, Session 2007-10. 3. She claims to have appeared at the first year examination, but failed to clear two papers out of four. She was permitted to attend the second year course and passed the examination also. During the second year she cleared the two papers of the first year in which she had failed. She was then permitted to attend the third year course and passed the third year examination also. The petitioner is aggrieved by the withholding of her third year result on the ground that having failed in two papers of the first year she was required to reappear in all four papers of the firs year. 4. Learned counsel for the University submits that before the petitioner can be deemed to have passed the course, she had to clear all four papers of the first year again under the regulations. Since she has not reappeared in all the four papers of the first year, the petitioner cannot claim too have passed the first year of the course till now and is therefore is not entitled to the publication of her third years result. 5. To the mind of this Court, it is for the University to answer as to how it permitted the petitioner to appear at the second year final examination without having cleared all the four papers of the first year. The Admit Card for the examination was issued by the University itself. Let alone that the University permitted the petitioner to take admission in the third year of the course and issued her Admit Card for the third year examination, allowed her to sit in the examination and then declared her to have passed but insists on withholding her result. 6. The aforesaid discussion leads this Court to the conclusion that it was primarily the University which was at fault. Having failed to perform its duty properly and in time by scrutiny of the eligibility of candidates to appear in the examination it seeks an excuse to shift the burden of its own inefficiency upon the petitioner. The University desires the petitioner to suffer for the wrongs of the University. Having failed to perform its duty properly and in time by scrutiny of the eligibility of candidates to appear in the examination it seeks an excuse to shift the burden of its own inefficiency upon the petitioner. The University desires the petitioner to suffer for the wrongs of the University. Once the petitioner has re-appeared in the failed papers, has been permitted by the University to appear not only in the second year examination of the course but to take admission in the third year also, equity clearly lies in her favour. Perhaps, it is for the University to introspect on its own administrative framework as to by whose fault the requirement of the regulations could not be followed before the University attempts to put the blame for its own faults upon the petitioner. In all fairness, the lapse was on part of the University. 7. In A.I.R. 1976 SC 376 (Shri Krishan Vs. Kurukshetra University) considering a similar issue the Supreme Court in the relevant extract at paragraph-7 and 9 of the judgment has held as follows:- "7. There was ample time and opportunity for the University authorities to have found out the defect. In these circumstances, therefore, if the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the appellant to appear in Part I examination in April, 1972 then by force of the University statute the University has no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidates....." "9........ if only the University authorities would have exercised proper diligence and care by scrutinizing the admission form when it was sent by the head of the department to the University as far back as December, 1971 they could have detected the defect of infirmities from which the form suffered according to the University statute. The head of the department of law was also guilty of dereliction of duty in not scrutinizing the admission form of the appellant before he forward the same to the University." 8. Relying on the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court 2009.(1) SCC 610 at paragraph 22 as held as follows:- " 22. The head of the department of law was also guilty of dereliction of duty in not scrutinizing the admission form of the appellant before he forward the same to the University." 8. Relying on the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court 2009.(1) SCC 610 at paragraph 22 as held as follows:- " 22. Having regard to the above we are of the view that irrespective of the fact that M.A (English) (OUS) degree secured by the first respondent from Annamalai University through distance education, may not be recognized as an equivalent to the Masters degree of the appellant University, his admission to the law course should not be cancelled The appellate University is directed to treat the admission as regular admission and permit the first respondent to appear for the law examination, and if he has already appeared for the examination, declare his result. The appeal is disposed off accordingly." 9. The University is directed to publish the third year results of the petitioner within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed.