Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2040 (ALL)

YOGENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-07-22

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri K.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Gunjan Jadwani, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Yash Tandon for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that his result of the back papers code No. 102 and 104 of B.P.Ed. session 2006-07 is not being declared by the University. 3. The petitioner was a student of B.P.Ed. in Chaudhari Har Chand Singh Degree College affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. In the final year examination of B.P.Ed. in paper code No. 102 and 104, he secured low marks and therefore, he applied for back papers as an ex student. An admit card was issued to him and he did took the examination in the above papers. However, the University vide endorsement dated 18.10.2014 made on his application refused to declare his result on the ground that he was not eligible to sit in the back papers. 4. In the above background petitioner has approached this Court contending that once the University had permitted him to take the examination in the above two papers, it is not fain on its part to say that the petitioner was illegally permitted to appear in the examination and therefore, his result cannot be declared. 5. The petitioner in support of his argument has heavily relied upon the admit card issued to him for appearing in the back papers. 6. The admit card as issued to the petitioner has been filed as annexure-2 to the writ petition. A bare reading of the admit card reveals that it was only provisional in nature subject the eligibility as per the University Rules. 7. The Ordinances and Regulations of the University with regard to the B.P.Ed. course vide Regulations 6 provides that if a candidate, clears the practical examination, but fails, to secure the minimum aggregate of pass marks in theory courses or remains absent in theory courses after completing attendances, he/she will have to appear again in all the theory courses as an ex-student in the subsequent years provided if he/she still fails to clear the theory courses in three successive subsequent years, he/she shall be declared to have failed at the examination and shall not be given any more chance to appear as an ex-student. 8. 8. Regulations 6 of the Ordinances and Regulations concerning B.P.Ed. of the Chaudhary Charan Singh University Meerut is produced herein below : “If a candidate, clears the practical examination, but fails, to secure the minimum aggregate of pass marks in theory courses or remains absent in theory courses after completing attendances, he/she have to appear again in all the theory courses as an ex-student in the subsequent years provided if he/she still fails to clear the theory courses in three successive subsequent years, he/she shall be declared to have failed at the examination and shall not be given any more chance to appear as an ex-student. If he/she fails in practical, he/she shall be declared to have failed. The facility of back papers will be available to the candidates in not more than two papers. The examination for the back paper will be held alongwith next corresponding annual examination. If the candidates fails to qualify in the Back Paper, he/she shall be entitled to reappear in the particular subject/subjects subsequent examination as an ex-student. However, the marks obtained previously by the candidate in internal assessment of the papers concerned shall be retained and added with the marks obtained in those papers.” 9. The bare reading of the above Regulations No. 6 makes it clear that the candidates who fail to secure the minimum aggregate of pass marks in theory courses alone are entitle to reappear in theory examination as an ex-student but this facility is not available to those students who have secured pass marks in theory papers. In other words, back paper facility is not permissible to the candidates who have actually passed the theory papers but secured low marks. 10. The petitioner’s statement of marks of the final examination of B.P.Ed. demonstrates that the petitioner in papers code No. 102 and 104 had obtained 55 and 48 marks respectively meaning thereby that he had passed in both the papers and as such was not entitle to take further examination in those papers as an ex-student. 11. The argument that it is not fair to refuse declaration of result after allowing the petitioner to sit in the examination is without substance for two reasons. First, the petitioner was only permitted to take the examination provisionally subject to eligibility as per Rules and secondly there is no estopple against the Rules. 11. The argument that it is not fair to refuse declaration of result after allowing the petitioner to sit in the examination is without substance for two reasons. First, the petitioner was only permitted to take the examination provisionally subject to eligibility as per Rules and secondly there is no estopple against the Rules. Secondly, when the Regulations do not permit the petitioner to appear as an ex-student the mere fact that he had taken the examination would not entitle him for declaration of his result as there is not estopple against the statutes. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the petitioner was not legally entitle under the ordinances and regulations of the University to appear as an ex-student in the above two papers, the University cannot be compelled to declare or issue mark-sheets to the petitioner of the above two papers as an ex-student. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed.