Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 27 (MP)

Sonam Jaiswal v. State of M. P.

2015-01-07

RAJENDRA MENON, S.K.GANGELE

body2015
ORDER 1. Petitioner was a student who was prosecuting a course in M.Sc. (IT) in the institute of respondent No.3, which is affiliated to the University i.e. respondent No.2. Petitioner appeared in the IInd, IIIrd and IVth Semester examination, which was conducted in June, 2011, December, 2011 and June 2012. However, when the results were not declared, petitioner filed this writ petition. 2. On notice being issued, respondent No.3 Institute has filed the reply and they point out that now vide Annexure R-3/6, R-3/7 and R-3/8 the marksheets of petitioner have been issued by the University and the institute has handed over the marksheets to the petitioner. It is also indicated in the reply that delay in issuing the marksheets had resulted because of the fact that the petitioner’s marks in the practical examination (internal assessment) undertaken by the institute was misplaced and the Institute thereafter took up the examination again and forwarded the internal marks to the university and thereafter the University declared the result of all the three semesters and issued the marksheet. 3. It is stated by filing additional documents vide I.A. No.1666/2014 that now as the petitioner’s marksheet has been issued, the petitioner has indicated her willingness to withdraw the writ petition. However, Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accepted the aforesaid contention and points out that in all the three marksheets petitioner has shown to have passed the examination in the backlog category, meaning thereby petitioner has failed in earlier occasion and thereafter appeared and passed the examination as private candidate. It is stated that this would adversely affect the petitioner and because of fault on the part of the institute and the University petitioner should not suffer. It is stated that petitioner would be satisfied if a fresh marksheet is issued deleting the word ‘Backlog’ in all the three marksheets. 4. Inspite the fact that matter is pending since 9.1.2013 and inspite of granting more than 5 opportunities the University has not filed any reply. On the last date of hearing it was clearly indicated by us that the university should file their reply, failing which matter shall be heard without granting them any further time. Today also learned counsel for the University prays for time to seek instructions. However, no justifiable reason for not filing the reply is forthcoming from the University. 5. On the last date of hearing it was clearly indicated by us that the university should file their reply, failing which matter shall be heard without granting them any further time. Today also learned counsel for the University prays for time to seek instructions. However, no justifiable reason for not filing the reply is forthcoming from the University. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the reply filed by respondent No.3 it is clear that due to delay in forwarding internal marks of petitioner by the Institute, marksheets were not issued. University has issued the marksheet now vide annexure R-3/6, R-3/7 and R-3/8 after the internal marks were forwarded by the Institute. However, as indicated by the petitioner the word ‘Backlog’ appears in all the marksheets. It is clear that the marks of internal assessment were not forwarded to the University because of some error and lapse on the part of the Institute. It is clear that the marks of petitioner for the internal assessment were misplaced by the institute, thereafter again internal examination were conducted and result declared. Taking note of all these circumstances it is clear that petitioner suffered loss because of error on the part of the Institute and the University in declaring the result of the petitioner, under such circumstances the relief now claimed for deleting the word ‘Backlog’ appearing in the marksheet should be granted and petitioner be treated as regular student and fresh marksheet be issued. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The university is directed to issue fresh marksheet to the petitioner indicating petitioner to be a regular student of respondent No.3 Institute and the marksheet be issued within a period of one month. 7. With the aforesaid the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Shri Ankit Agrawal for petitioner; R. S. Patel for respondent No.2; Nitin Shukla for respondent No.3.