Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 470 (CAL)

Rajjyoti Mondal v. State of West Bengal

2014-05-16

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2014
Judgment Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. The petitioner was a student of the Bengal Engineering and Science University (BESU or University, for short) and he passed out in the year 2012 after completing his four year Bachelor of Technology course. An untoward incident took place after the completion of 7th semester while he was getting himself ready to appear for the final semester examination. On April 12, 2012, as per the petitioner’s version, a few unruly students of the university got involved in a scuffle with some outsiders and policemen. As a result some students were arrested who were subsequently released by the police upon intervention of the BESU authorities. According to the petitioner he never participated in the incident. He had merely witnessed it from a distance. The petitioner subsequently came to learn that the authorities of the BESU had hastily constituted a disciplinary committee on April 13, 2012 to investigate into the matter. A few senior students were asked to give in writing that no student of the university was involved in the incident which was perpetrated at the instance of the outsiders. It was given out to the students that this was necessary for securing the release of the arrested students of the college and the petitioner also in good faith had given an undertaking. The disciplinary committee after conclusion of the enquiry affixed the report on the BESU notice board and the petitioner was shocked to discover that about 18 students were involved in the incident, the petitioner being one of them. The disciplinary committee had suggested a punishment in respect of the petitioner that permission to appear at the last three papers of the forthcoming examination might be withdrawn and the petitioner had been expelled from the university with immediate effect. Other students also were variously punished. The petitioner alleges that the committee had investigated into the matter very hastily. He was never afforded any opportunity to be present before the committee and present his case, neither the committee revealed the facts on the basis of which they had come to such a conclusion. He was not given any hearing and merely made a scapegoat to protect the dignity of the university. He was never afforded any opportunity to be present before the committee and present his case, neither the committee revealed the facts on the basis of which they had come to such a conclusion. He was not given any hearing and merely made a scapegoat to protect the dignity of the university. He has expressed his surprise that on the date of the incident six students were arrested for being involved in the incident but they were neither named in the alleged report nor were they punished in any manner. In the month of June, 2012 on being asked by the petitioner the Dean of the concerned faculty council of the university certified that the petitioner was a student of the 8th semester undergraduate course of mechanical engineering of the university and had completed all the requirements for completion of the Bachelor of Engineering course in mechanical engineering except three theoretical papers. This incident has a parallel ramification in other spheres of his life. After a campus interview he was already selected provisionally for the post of Management Trainee by the Coal India Limited along with others. It was made known to the students that they would have to qualify test of medical fitness as also to acquire a minimum of 60 per cent. marks in aggregate at the end of their final semester examination to provisionally join the service. The petitioner had passed the final examination in August, 2012 and had secured more than 60 per cent. marks in the said examination. He had approached the Coal India Limited but did not get any reply. He, therefore, filed a writ petition in the year 2012 against the Coal India Limited making the respondent no. 2 herein a party thereto. The said writ petition was disposed on September 24, 2012 directing the Coal India Limited to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner within a certain period after offering him an opportunity of being heard, if necessary. On December 24, 2012 Coal India Limited passed an order regretting to appoint him as a Management Trainee since he had not passed the final examination without supplementary/arrears of papers. Therefore, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities requesting them to revoke and cancel the order of punishment and to disclose the reasons on the basis of which such a step was taken against him. Therefore, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities requesting them to revoke and cancel the order of punishment and to disclose the reasons on the basis of which such a step was taken against him. The respondents had kept silent which has compelled the petitioner to move this writ petition praying inter alia for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to revoke and recall the order dated April 17, 2012, a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith issue a certificate certifying the fact that he had cleared his examinations in a single attempt, and not in a supplementary form and for other reliefs. The respondents nos. 2 to 5 have contested this petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the Registrar of the University. According to the respondents the writ petition is not maintainable and is barred by the principle analogous to Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same is also barred by the principle of res judicata and estoppel. Previously the petitioner had filed a writ petition in which his prayers were for a direction upon the answering respondents to clarify his status as a regular student and to intimate the recruiting company that he had not appeared in the supplementary examination in the final semester and he prayed for a direction upon the Coal India to give appointment to the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of with the order mentioned earlier. The petitioner had thus omitted to seek the relief claimed in the present writ petition which was integral to the cause of action in the previous writ petition and the present writ ought, therefore, to be dismissed. According to the respondents the petitioner after admitting his conduct neither chose to challenge the veracity of any of the orders passed by the disciplinary committee nor he prayed for cancellation or revocation of the order of punishment. Upon abandonment of such prayers he only prayed for consideration of the representation made to the Coal India. The alleged cause for which the petitioner has sued the present respondents as well as in the earlier writ petition was similar. As such the present writ petition is not maintainable in law. The answering respondents have denied the allegations made in the writ petition. The alleged cause for which the petitioner has sued the present respondents as well as in the earlier writ petition was similar. As such the present writ petition is not maintainable in law. The answering respondents have denied the allegations made in the writ petition. According to them there are innumerable instances when he had taken part in many underworld incidents and on several occasions he had violated the disciplinary norms of the university for which he was reprimanded in the past. The Vice Chancellor of the BESU had also received complaints against him from the police station. Such unlawful activities are highly unbecoming of a student and the resultant penal measures have been undertaken to avoid recurrence of the same. The petitioner had also appeared in the supplementary examinations in the past. The deponent had to take immediate action following the untoward incident on April 12, 2012 and had constituted a fact finding disciplinary committee which was asked to suggest exemplary punishments to the erring students. The members of the disciplinary committee carried out a thorough enquiry and interrogated relevant persons present during and after the incident and also interrogated the students who were primarily identified to have been involved in the initiation of the incident. The committee reconstructed the incident and identified the students who were involved in the incident and thereafter suggested punishment to be meted out to the erring students. According to the respondents the petitioner had accepted the action of the disciplinary committee and as such he is precluded from challenging the same by preferring the present application. A more technical point has also been taken by them that the petitioner had not challenged the report of the disciplinary committee, but nonetheless prayed for the alleged cancellation of the order dated April 17, 2012 issued by the Registrar. The disciplinary committee had considered the written depositions submitted by the offenders including the petitioner and the committee thereafter with due deliberation submitted its report and at the time of the enquiry it was found that the contention of the petitioner was false, motivated and baseless and could not be relied upon. There are contradictions in the statements made inasmuch as on May 25, 2012 he had admitted that he could not appear in the examinations due to medical reasons. There are contradictions in the statements made inasmuch as on May 25, 2012 he had admitted that he could not appear in the examinations due to medical reasons. So far as the employment in the Coal India Limited is concerned the answering respondents have left it to the discretion of the company. The respondents have, however, maintained that it will be an illegal act on the part of the petitioner to issue a letter in his favour intimating the said company that the petitioner has passed the final examination in a single attempt when the fact remains that admittedly he failed to appear in the last three papers of the final semester examination due to penal measures taken by the respondents authorities. It has been very specifically asserted by the respondents that the petitioner had himself filled up the application for the purpose of appearing in the supplementary examination of the 8th semester and he also deposited necessary fees for appearing in the said supplementary examination which was conducted in the month of July, 2012. An examination of a subject conducted by the respondent university in addition to the original schedule of examination is considered as a supplementary examination. Subsequently, on August 2, 2012 BESU had also published the provisional result of the supplementary examination indicating therein that the petitioner had passed the supplementary examination in second class and the same had been acknowledged by the petitioner by putting his signature. It appears from the note prepared by the Controller of Examinations that he had appeared in the supplementary examination for three papers in which he did not appear in the final semester examination held in April-May, 2012. The answering respondents have maintained that while forming the disciplinary committee had accepted the standard practice that senior faculty members are to investigate the case in details and to suggest appropriate penal measure for greater interest of the university and to inculcate a sense of discipline. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply has largely reiterated the stand taken by him in the writ petition. He has maintained that the disciplinary committee did not afford him of any opportunity of hearing or any chance for refuting the allegations. The allegations made in the affidavit-in-opposition are neither relevant nor necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition. The petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply has largely reiterated the stand taken by him in the writ petition. He has maintained that the disciplinary committee did not afford him of any opportunity of hearing or any chance for refuting the allegations. The allegations made in the affidavit-in-opposition are neither relevant nor necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition. He has also denied the allegation that the present writ petition is barred by the principles analogous to Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The earlier writ petition was filed primarily against Coal India Limited and its officers seeking a direction upon the officers to give appointment to the petitioner to the post of Management Trainee and it was also accordingly disposed of by this court. This present writ petition, contrary to the allegations made by the respondents, is not based on either the same facts or similar issues on identical cause of action with the writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier. According to him the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are inapplicable as provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also denied the allegation about the involvement with any unworthy or illegal activity in the past. He has also denied that he had written any letter to the university authority that he could not appear in the last three examinations of the final semester due to medical reasons and states that he was not aware as to the procedures adopted by the answering respondents to clarify his status as that of a supplementary candidate. He says that he passed the examination in a single attempt and not in the supplementary form. The petitioner has finally alleged that the answering respondents had violated the principles of natural justice and no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before inflicting penalties upon him. He has again prayed for the reliefs made in the writ petition. The question thus revolves round three basic issues. First, whether the enquiry held against the petitioner was properly conducted. Secondly, whether the present writ petition is barred by the principle analogous to Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and thirdly, to what extent, if at all, the relief as prayed for is entertainable by this court. The question thus revolves round three basic issues. First, whether the enquiry held against the petitioner was properly conducted. Secondly, whether the present writ petition is barred by the principle analogous to Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and thirdly, to what extent, if at all, the relief as prayed for is entertainable by this court. At the hearing of the writ petition I directed the authorities to produce the records relating to the proceeding and pursuant thereto the learned advocate for the BESU had produced the copies of the documents relating to the disciplinary proceeding. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and have considered the records. There is no doubt that the disciplinary committee had submitted its report within only three days after it was constituted. The report is silent whether the petitioner was ever afforded any personal hearing. On the contrary it appears therefrom that the committee had completed the task of interrogating the members of the faculty, officers, staff, security personnel and the students who were primarily identified as involved in the initiation of the said incident in its first meeting on April 13, 2014 and the residual work was done on the second sitting of the meeting on April 16, 2012. Thus, the disciplinary authority had submitted its report only after two sittings. There was discussion with a large number of persons, interrogation of several students belonging to different categories as categorized by the committee. The number of students so interrogated were 14. The time taken by the committee for the completion of the report after allegedly performing such a heavy duty was too short and I quite agree with the submission of the petitioner that the disciplinary committee had submitted its report rather hastily. There is, however, nothing wrong if a committee submits its report hastily. Time is not the key factor. What, however, is to be considered is whether while submitting the report the committee had discharged its duties properly and after complying with the basic principles of law and natural justice. After all this was a fact finding committee. The responsibility of the committee was rather heavy as it was to arrive at a finding relating to the involvement of different categories of students and their eventual culpabilities. After all this was a fact finding committee. The responsibility of the committee was rather heavy as it was to arrive at a finding relating to the involvement of different categories of students and their eventual culpabilities. The petitioner has persistently alleged that he was neither given any show-cause notice nor was directed to appear before the committee nor was he specifically charged with having committed any offence so that he might answer the same. The procedure followed by the committee is also against the principles of natural justice. It is not clear from the report what the committee had meant by the interrogation of the students of different categories. If one goes by the meaning attached to the word in ordinary parlance it does not appear, at least from the records produced in court or from the report, that the students were really interrogated by the members of the committee. On the contrary it appears that the committee requested them to submit a written and signed statement of facts of their experience during the incident. The petitioner has specifically alleged that he never appeared before the committee and the answering respondents have not also denied the same except repeating the procedure for interrogation which appears in the report itself. The report of the committee as well as the affidavit are silent about how this interrogation was conducted and whether it was reduced to writing, whether any witness was produced on behalf of the university and whether any opportunity of cross-examining any such witness was given to the petitioner. The claim in the affidavit that the members of the committee had interrogated the students is presumably the result of the repeated use of the word ‘interrogation’ in the report of the committee. Even if any such interrogation had taken place it is not reflected in the report. However, it appears that the petitioner along with others were directed to submit their statements of facts in writing. The disciplinary committee thereafter undertook the exercise of ‘reconstruction’ of the incident and identification of students involved therein. In a fact finding enquiry there is no scope for reconstruction of any incident. This became necessary because no formal charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner containing specific allegations against him and the factual statements. Reconstruction of an incident goes contrary to the finding of fact by a committee. In a fact finding enquiry there is no scope for reconstruction of any incident. This became necessary because no formal charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner containing specific allegations against him and the factual statements. Reconstruction of an incident goes contrary to the finding of fact by a committee. Under this heading the disciplinary committee had given a version that the incident, presumably collaged from the individual statements submitted by different students. How the culpability of the petitioner surfaced from the statements has not been stated in the report with clarity and details sufficient to pinpoint the role of the petitioner. The report says: “A group of junior students (3rd year, 2nd year and 1st year) were led by Rajjyoti Mondal towards the Shalimar station to find out on their way some local people who escaped their wrath and fled on that direction. On the way Rajjyoti enquired some local inhabitants on whether any person fled running in that direction. The answer to his question being negative, Rajjyoti led the students following him back to second gate. ” This is the only reference to the petitioner in the report except that he was also identified as taking part directly in beating the policemen or instigating the crowd. There is absolutely no evidentiary back-up as to how the committee came to the conclusion. At least there is no discussion about how they arrived at the same. Rajjyoti’s statement naturally is not self-incriminating. Any evidence collected or any statement relied on by the committee to which he was not a privy must be deemed to be an evidence collected behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner not having been given any opportunity to contradict the same or even to cross-examine the makers of the same such a sweeping conclusion must be deemed to be arbitrary and grossly violative of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the respondents tried to justify the action of the BESU in the name of students’ discipline and that in the case of an enquiry with regard to an act committed by students rigid adherence to the provisions of the Evidence Act is not necessary. I am afraid, I cannot concur with this submission in unqualified terms. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the respondents tried to justify the action of the BESU in the name of students’ discipline and that in the case of an enquiry with regard to an act committed by students rigid adherence to the provisions of the Evidence Act is not necessary. I am afraid, I cannot concur with this submission in unqualified terms. After all the authorities while conducting a fact finding enquiry ought to have been conscious about the ramifications of the report and more particularly the future of the petitioner which might be thoroughly affected by the same. A larger consideration of factual matrix was expected of such a high power committee before they came to a conclusions for which there is practically no discussion of the evidence in the report. As a proposition of law it is not correct to submit that in matters concerning student indiscipline compliance of the principles of natural justice is a dispensable entity. Judicial pronouncements do not support such an extreme stand. In the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education –Vs.- Chitra Srivastava, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1039 the Supreme Court held that examination of a candidate or the result thereof cannot be cancelled without informing the aggrieved person of the nature of the accusation made. Again in the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education –Vs.- Bagleswar Prasad, reported in AIR 1966 SC 875 , the importance of offering an opportunity of being heard to an aggrieved person and of defending himself was recognized. In Prem Prakase Kaluniya –Vs.- Punjab University, reported in AIR 1972 SC 1408 , a proceeding leading to disqualifying a candidate from appearing at an examination was held to be quasi-judicial. Therefore, that is all the more a reason why the authorities were required to comply with the principles of natural justice. If a student is asked to give statements in writing without being issued a charge-sheet he is deprived of the opportunity to know the accusations against him. He does not know the allegations he has to meet. His statements must also necessary fail to be a proper defence statements. The committee is not alone to blame. They were under a pressure of time to complete the report. He does not know the allegations he has to meet. His statements must also necessary fail to be a proper defence statements. The committee is not alone to blame. They were under a pressure of time to complete the report. They were appointed on April 13, 2012 and the Registrar requested them to submit the report on April 15, 2012 which means only 48 hours were granted to them for this huge task. The authorities have undoubtedly gone against the basic principles of natural justice, collected evidence behind the back of the petitioner, did not give him any opportunity of hearing and did not produce any witness too. But they have unhesitatingly concluded about his involvement in the incident. The petitioner has relied on the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, UP Allahabad –Vs.-Ghanshyam Das Guta and Others, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1110 . The Supreme Court had held that a statute is not likely to provide in so many words that the authority passing the order is required to act judicially. That can only be inferred with from the express provisions of the statute. There is no doubt that many of the powers of the examinations committee of the relevant Board of UP were of administrative in nature. But where quasi-judicial duties are entrusted to an administrative body it becomes a quasi-judicial body for performing those duties and it can prescribe its own procedure so long as the principles of natural justice are followed and adequate opportunities of presenting his case is given to an examinee. Where no opportunity whatsoever is given to an examinee to give an explanation and present his case before the committee the resolution of the committee canceling his result and barring him from appearing at the next examination is vitiated. This is a judgement which I find to be fairly applicable to the facts of the case. The committee must have prescribed its own procedure. This is a right which admittedly inheres in them; but in the process they failed to comply with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has further relied on the case of Gajadhar Prasad Misra –Vs.- The Vice Chancellor of the University of Allahabad and Others, reported in AIR 1966 All 477 . This is a right which admittedly inheres in them; but in the process they failed to comply with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has further relied on the case of Gajadhar Prasad Misra –Vs.- The Vice Chancellor of the University of Allahabad and Others, reported in AIR 1966 All 477 . The Allahabad High Court held that the Act, statutes, ordinances and regulation so expressly provided for calling for an explanation and hearing a student before inflicting any punishment. It further held that in the process of deciding whether or not to punish a student, and if to punish, what punishment to award, the Vice Chancellor cannot avoid object of determination of certain facts. The Vice Chancellor cannot determine whether or not a student is guilty of misconduct unless the materials in respect of the alleged misconduct are before him and unless he is satisfied that the same is trustworthy and sufficient to enable him to hold the student guilty. The Vice Chancellor is required to act judicially. The petitioner has also relied on the case of Ajai Kumar Mittal –Vs.- Vice-Chancellor, Roorkee University, Roorkee and Others, reported in AIR 1991 All 177 . A learned single judge of that case had held that a disciplinary enquiry against a student is neither a ritual nor an empty formality. The object of such an enquiry is to ascertain the true state of affairs after giving a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent. The learned single judge further held that it is essential in a case where witnesses are examined and evidence is collected behind the back of the witness that the gist of the statement of those witnesses and other evidence should be supplied to the delinquent so as to enable him to make reasonable and effective representation against the charges. Failure to do so would result in violation of fair principles of natural justice. In the case cited above by the petitioner evidence was recorded behind the back of the delinquent student and he was also not given gist of the evidence or the enquiry report. Thus, I cannot but agree with the finding of the petitioner that while conducting the enquiry the respondents have grossly violated the principles of natural justice and on this ground alone the order of punishment impugned in the writ petition is liable to be quashed. Mr. Thus, I cannot but agree with the finding of the petitioner that while conducting the enquiry the respondents have grossly violated the principles of natural justice and on this ground alone the order of punishment impugned in the writ petition is liable to be quashed. Mr. Mukherjee has strenuously argued that this writ petition is hit by the principle analogous to Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition could have been prayed for in the earlier writ petition as well. The petitioner having omitted to do so cannot agitate the same twice over in the present writ petition. I do not find much merit in the submission. The earlier writ petition was primarily directed against the Coal India Limited to answer the representations made by him or to offer him an employment. That is why he had prayed for a Mandamus commanding the respondents to give appointment to the post of Management Trainee. That was the primary prayer with which he had come to the court. That was also the subject-matter of the writ petition. Although he referred to the incident which he had to in order to provide the factual background for moving the writ petition the earlier writ petition must be held to be directly against the Coal India Limited. BESU has hardly any role to play. The pleadings of the earlier writ petition and the points of law involved therein make it very clear that it was basically directed against the Coal India Limited. The points of law raised therein was whether the Coal India Limited had really violated any provision of law in not offering the employment to the petitioner after he was selected. In the paragraph preceding the ‘Grounds’ the petitioner had specifically stated that he was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inaction on the part of the Coal India Limited to give appointment to him as a Management Trainee. The inaction on the part of the respondents has been repeatedly mentioned as their failure to give employment to the petitioner. Most certainly BESU was not supposed to offer any employment and this must be held restricted to the Coal India Limited alone. The inaction on the part of the respondents has been repeatedly mentioned as their failure to give employment to the petitioner. Most certainly BESU was not supposed to offer any employment and this must be held restricted to the Coal India Limited alone. Merely because the petitioner had also prayed for a direction upon the BESU to clarify its status cannot take away any right from moving the present writ petition with a very different set of prayers and with a very different object. From a pure point of law Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be held to have no application to the facts of the present case. It is a settled proposition of law that where the causes of action are different between the two proceedings Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code does not apply. To succeed on the plea of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC one of the essential elements to establish is whether the claim made in the present case could have been made either wholly or in part in respect of the cause of action in the previous proceeding. The cause of action and the purpose of the earlier writ petition having been different the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition would have been inconsistent with the pleadings in the earlier writ petition. Apart from the identity of causes of action two more requirements are to be satisfied by the respondents. First, both the proceedings must be between the same parties, and secondly, the earlier proceedings must have been decided on merits. And both of them are lacking in the present one. Coal India Limited is not a party to the present petition. And the earlier writ petition was not disposed of on merits, but by giving a direction upon the Coal India Limited to consider the representation of the petitioner. That was not a decision on merits. The law on the point is again very well settled that Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure can be relied on by the defendant or the respondent if he can establish primarily the precise cause of action upon which the previous proceeding was filed. Here the respondents could not establish it beyond merely mentioning the prayers made in the earlier writ petition. Here the respondents could not establish it beyond merely mentioning the prayers made in the earlier writ petition. In Gurbux Singh –Vs.- Bhooralal, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1810 , the Supreme Court had observed that the plea of Order 2 Rule 2(3) cannot be presumed on inferential reasoning. On this ground also this defence of the respondents based on the technical plea of Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure must fail. That apart in the case of Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma –Vs.- State of U.P. and Others, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1334 a four-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had very specifically held that the bar of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not apply to a petition of high prerogative writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has already been found that even if the principle analogous to the one contained in the Civil Procedure Code had applied to a writ petition the same cannot be invoked to bar the present writ petition. I, however, do find substance in the submission of Mr. Mukherjee that it will be improper on the part of the respondents to certify that the petitioner had cleared the examinations not in a supplementary form. If the rule or the practice of the university are such that an examination of any subject conducted by BESU in addition to the original schedule of examinations is to be considered as a supplementary examination that should not be directed to be deviated from. A university like all examining bodies has its prerogative to prescribe rules for examinations and if the university has framed any such rule then that should not be disturbed. The fact remains that the petitioner could not appear at the final examination as originally scheduled and he had also filled up the application for the purpose of appearing in the supplementary examination. This is a statement which has not been specifically denied by the petitioner in his affidavit-in-reply. His statement of ignorance about the procedure adopted by the respondents to classify his status as a supplementary candidate is a vague denial and is hardly acceptable. I cannot, therefore, direct the university to issue any such certificate as prayed for by the petitioner certifying that he has passed the examination in one go. His statement of ignorance about the procedure adopted by the respondents to classify his status as a supplementary candidate is a vague denial and is hardly acceptable. I cannot, therefore, direct the university to issue any such certificate as prayed for by the petitioner certifying that he has passed the examination in one go. The petitioner’s prayer to that effect is not permissible. In such view of it the writ petition partly succeeds. I set aside and quash the order dated April 17, 2012 issued by the respondent no. 4 which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-3. I, however, decline to issue any Mandamus in terms of prayer (c) to the writ petition. In the event the writ petition is partly allowed. There shall, however, no order as to costs.