Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 800 (JHR)

Gokhuleshwar Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2013-07-05

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is seeking issuance of a mandamus upon the respondents authorities of the University to publish the result of Part-III L.L.B. for the academic sessions 1989-90 and 1990-91, which has not been published. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 'has' relied upon Annexure-8, a letter issued by the Bar Council of India dated 8th April, 2003 as per which, on the representation of one Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Secretary, Students Association, B.N.S. Law College, Daltonganj, (for short 'College') recommendation was made directing the Ranchi University, Ranchi, Jharkhand to publish the result of the students of the said College for the session 1989-90 and 1990-91 of L.L.B. Part-III. However, the same has not yet been done. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-University, on the basis of the categorical statement made in counter affidavit submits that the B.N.S. Law College, Daltonganj, Jharkhand was established in the year 1981 by letter dated 12th April, 1983 and the State Government granted approval for affiliation of the College for the session 1981-82. There are no documents to show that by the said letter, College was granted affiliation for the subsequent years. In the year 1998, after fifteen (15) years by letter no. 2119 dated 23.3.1998, issued by the State of Bihar, affiliation for the session 1984-85 to 1997-98 was granted. However, the State of Bihar by their letter no. 2135 dated 15.12.1998, realizing that the recognition of the College by the Bar Council of India is mandatory, informed the University that the approval as mentioned in letter dated 23rd December, 1998 for the sessions 1984-85 to 1997-98 be read as 1993-94 to 1997-98 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit). It has further been submitted that by the letter of Bar Council of India dated 21st November, 1993/6th December, 1993, it would be evident that temporary affiliation for a period of 5 years was granted to the said law College in terms of the decision in a meeting held on 19.11.1993. Thus the College was recognized by the Bar Council of India for the first time in December, 1993 and there was no recognition for the earlier sessions i.e. 1989-90 and 1990-91. Neither there was any approval for affiliation by the State Government nor the College was recognized by the Bar Council of India. 5. Thus the College was recognized by the Bar Council of India for the first time in December, 1993 and there was no recognition for the earlier sessions i.e. 1989-90 and 1990-91. Neither there was any approval for affiliation by the State Government nor the College was recognized by the Bar Council of India. 5. In such circumstances, in a earlier writ petition preferred by the student of the same College for similar relief i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 3408 of 2000(R), the Jharkhand High Court declined to issue directions for publication of the result upon the University. Learned single Judge of this Court by the judgment dated 14th February, 2001 had held that even if, the petitioner may have appeared in the examination, the University cannot publish its result since the College was not recognized by the Bar Council of India during the sessions 1987-1988 and 1989-90 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit). 6. There were also petitions preferred before the district forum, which in two separate petitions gave conflicting orders. However, on the appeal preferred before the State Commission by the Ranchi University, the said orders were set aside with cost whereunder the district forum had directed publication of result for the aforesaid sessions. The same writ petitioner had also preferred a revision petition No. 2735 of 2002/A before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which, however, was dismissed by judgment dated 24th February, 2003, Annexure-D. Regarding the correspondence dated 8th April 2003 (Annexure-8), relied by the petitioner, the respondents have answered the same in para-6 of the counter affidavit stating that the same were issued without notice or giving opportunity of hearing to the University. 7. In the background of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the Ranchi University submits that the proceedings of the petitioner is not only wholly misconceived but also amounts to abuse of the process of law as has been instituted after failing in successive applications before different forums. The State of Bihar in their affidavit after being impleaded as party, have also clarified that the earlier letter dated 23rd December, 1998 was modified by the letter dated 15th December, 1999 and the approval of affiliation for the said College was granted for the sessions 1993-94 to 1997-98 and not from the sessions 1984-85 to 1997-98. These facts have not been refuted by the petitioner by filing rejoinder. 8. These facts have not been refuted by the petitioner by filing rejoinder. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the• petitioner and having gone through the relevant materials available on record as also the averments made on behalf of the respondent-Ranchi University and the Sate of Bihar, it, therefore appears that the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of any mandamus in the nature, as claimed for, upon the respondents for publication of the results of Part-II and III L.L.B. for the academic sessions 1989-90 and 1990-91 as the College was not having any recognition by the Bar Council of India at the relevant point of time. 9. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, also appears to be an exercise of abuse of the process of law. However, this Court is not inclined to impose any cost in the matter. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.