Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1226 (HP)

Lalit Narain Mishra v. State of HP

2015-09-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The petitioner by medium of this writ petition has challenged the actions of respondent No.2 i.e. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry by claiming therein various reliefs, but however, during the course of hearing, the petitioner has confined his claim to reliefs No. (c) and (d), respectively, which are as follows: “(c ). That the respondent-University may be directed to show the answer sheets/books of the petitioner of the examination of 2nd Semester of 2nd Year M.Sc.(Horticulture), in First hourly, Mid term, Second hourly and Practical Examination for course No. FSC-516/Course title Systematics of Fruit Crops, Academic Year 2013-2014 and the copy of notification of dates of examination for the said examination, for which grading has been reported at Annexure P-1. (d) That the respondent–University may be directed to show or place on records the answer sheets/books of the petitioner in examination of Practical examination and final examination of M.Sc (Horticulture), academic year 2013-14, Course No. FSC-506, 2nd semester, Course Title: Breeding of Fruit Crops, Cr. Hrs: 2+1 for which grading has been shown at Annexure P-2.” 2. The petitioner would contend that the respondent-University did not conduct the examination of first hourly, midterm, second hourly and practical examination of Programme: M.Sc. (Horticulture), Academic Year 2013-2014, Course No. FSC-516, Course title : Systematics of Fruit Crops, Cr.Hrs. 2+1 of the petitioner nor the date of examination for the same was notified on the notice board of the College. This all happened despite the fact that the petitioner met the respondent No.6 time and again to know the date of examination prior to conducting the end-term examination but was told that the petitioner should prepare his assignments of the papers. It is further alleged that although the petitioner had submitted his assignment for the said paper, but in the result card, in the column of ‘Assignment’ ‘absent’ has been shown marked which is incorrect. 3. It is then averred that the petitioner was allotted less marks in practical examination and final examination in Course No. FSC-506, Course Title – Breeding of Fruit Crops as per result card due to malafide intention of respondents No. 4 and 6. The respondent No.6 in fact did not conduct first hourly examination of Course No. FSC-506 and the petitioner was denied access to his answer book when so demanded by the petitioner. 4. The respondent No.6 in fact did not conduct first hourly examination of Course No. FSC-506 and the petitioner was denied access to his answer book when so demanded by the petitioner. 4. That respondents have filed their separate replies the crux whereof is that the petitioner had appeared in both the aforesaid examinations and based upon his performance, he had been assigned the marks accordingly. It is further averred that the petitioner failed to submit his assignment upto the endterm examination and did not turn up for final practical examination and was rightly shown as ‘absent’ in the course No. FSC-516. It is also averred that all the other students excluding the petitioner in terms of academic regulations of the University had checked their answer books, but the petitioner had never reported to check his answer books. Lastly, it is averred that since overall performance of the petitioner was poor in all the semesters, he was eventually dropped from the course. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. On 27.5.2015, the respondent-University had produced before us the answer sheets and details of marks of the petitioner in two sealed covers which were opened and thereafter kept in the safe custody of this Court. The sealed envelopes have again been re-opened and the same contain the answer books of the petitioner of both the courses i.e. FSC-506 and FSC-516. The marks allotted therein with respect to different semesters completely belies the allegations leveled by the petitioner that he did not appear in these papers and therefore the allegations to this effect in the petition are palpably false and incorrect. 7. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation and one cannot be permitted to pick and choose the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress or not to disclose other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction of this Court rests on disclosure of true and complete facts. It is equally well settled that a petitioner who does not come with candid facts and clean hands cannot hold a writ of the Court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is most reprehensible. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction of this Court rests on disclosure of true and complete facts. It is equally well settled that a petitioner who does not come with candid facts and clean hands cannot hold a writ of the Court with soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is most reprehensible. In a writ proceeding, if the petitioner does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner with a view to mislead or deceive the Court, the Court is bound to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process. Jugglery has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. 8. That apart, we find that there is no material whatsoever placed by the petitioner which may even remotely indicate that the petitioner had in fact submitted his assignments and had therefore wrongly been shown to be absent. The respondents have explained the position in detail in their replies duly supported by affidavits and we see no reason to disbelieve the same. 9. As the petitioner has based his claim on falsehood and has not come with clean hands, we would have normally awarded exemplary costs, but we refrain from doing so since the petitioner is only a student. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.