Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 577 (PAT)

Pushpa Kumari v. State of Bihar

2024-06-28

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, NANI TAGIA, PARTHA SARTHY

body2024
Ashutosh Kumar, J.—A Batch of writ petitions of students of B.N. Mandal University (herein after referred to as University) had come up before a learned Single Judge of this Court, seeking a direction to the University to publish their results. Their results had been withheld for a variety of reasons; but primarily on the ground that they had not passed in the respective subjects within three consecutive examination. 2. The learned Single Judge examined Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulation for Bachelor of Arts (General/Honors) Examination (three year degree course). The relevant Regulation Nos. 7 and 8 are being extracted here for ready reference and completeness.— “7.1 There shall be University examination at the end of the first, the second and the third years of study to be known respectively as the B.A. (General/Honours) Part I Part II and Part III examination. No student shall be admitted to the B.A. (General) or B.A. (Honours) Part II class unless he has passed the B.A. (General) or B.A. (Honours) Part I examination and to the Part III class unless he has passed the Part II examination. Provided that if a student fails in, or fails to appear at, not more than two subjects at the B.A. (General/Honours) Part I/II examination he shall be promoted to the next higher class but he shall not be eligible for admission to the B.A. (General) or B.A. (Honours) Part III class unless he has passed the B.A. (General) or B.A. (Honours) Part I examination in the subject/subjects concerned. Provided further that this facility for appearing in such carry over subject/subjects shall be available to a student at not more than three consecutive examinations. 7.2 If a student of the B.A. (Honours) course, after having passed the BA (Honours) Part 1 examination does not like to continue with the Honours course it shall be permissible for him to change over to the B. A. (General Course, in which case he shall be admitted to the B.A. (General) Part- II class and his honors and subsidiary subjects shall become his optional subjects and the marks secured in those subjects at the B.A. (Honours) examination shall be treated accordingly. Provided that the average of the marks secured in the Honours papers shall be treated as the marks secured in that optional subject. 8. Provided that the average of the marks secured in the Honours papers shall be treated as the marks secured in that optional subject. 8. Any registered student of the University may be admitted to the B.A. (General/Honours) Part 1, Part II or Part III examination if he produce a certificate from the Principal of a college of (a) good conduct (b) completion of regular course of study in the college by fulfillment of the prescribed requirement of attendance at lectures, tutorials and/or practical's and by satisfactory record of tutorial and/or practical and by satisfactory record of tutorial and/or practical work and (c) having passed the college test or any other equivalent examination, for making him eligible for the University examination. Provided that a candidate who has failed at any of these examinations or having completed the regular course of study by fulfilling all the requirements is prevented from appearing at the examination for reasons accepted as adequate by the Principal of the college and who has not joined a college again, may appear as a non-collegiate student at and up to three immediately following examinations without attendance at lectures and tutorials if he produces a certificate from the Principal of the college where he completed his regular course of study stating that nothing is known to the Principal against his moral character, and if such a candidate has offered any subject or subjects for which a practical examination is prescribed, other than Music and Home Science, also a certificate of having taken again a course of practical work at the college in each such subject for at least, 16 periods, along with his application for admission to the examination. Provided further that if a candidate for the B.A. (General/Honours) Part III examination has passed in other subjects/subjects and failed to pass only in General Studies he shall have the option to appear in that single subject at the next examination, and if he passes therein it shall be taken into consideration in determination of his results”. 3. The learned Single Judge noticed that there were divergence of opinion of different Benches in dealing with such matters. 3. The learned Single Judge noticed that there were divergence of opinion of different Benches in dealing with such matters. In some of the cases, the Bench had directed for publication of the result on the grounds of expediency and career of the students whereas, some of the Benches had held that no such direction could be given to the University in contravention of the Rules made for the purposes of examination. 4. Hence, the matter was referred to a larger Bench for settling the issue. 5. The Regulations 7 and 8 specify that there shall be a University Examination at the end of the first, second and the third years of the course. A student shall be admitted to part-II only after he clears part-I examination and he shall be admitted to part-III, if he has passed the part-II examination. 6. In case of a student not appearing at or failing in not more than two subjects in Part-I and II, he would be permitted to the next higher class but shall not be admitted to Part-III, unless he passes the Part-I examination of the subject concerned. 7. A cap of 3 years has been provided in the rules for the maximum number of times that a student could reappear in a paper. The rules provide that the facility for appearing in carry over subject/subjects would be available to a student at not more than three consecutive examinations. 8. Rule- 8 further provides that any registered student of the University could be admitted to B.A. Part-I, Part-II or Part-III examination, if he would produce a certificate from the Principal of the college of (a) good conduct; (b) completion of regular course study in the college with required attendance ; and (c) of having passed the college test, making him eligible for the University examination. 9. In case of such a contingency where a candidate would be prevented from appearing in an examination for adequate reasons, the adequacy of which shall be adjudged by the Principal of the college, he would be allowed to appear as a non-collegiate student at and up to three immediately following examinations, without attendance at lectures and tutorials, if he would produce a certificate from the Principal of the college, where he completed his regular course, regarding his good moral character. 10. 10. A conjoint reading of Regulation 7 and 8 clearly specifies that a student has to pass in all the three years but he could be promoted to the higher class, subject to his ultimately passing in earlier part. Regulation No. 8 provides the manner in which he would be admitted to a higher class. 11. A composite reading of Regulation 7 and 8 thus clarifies that a student is required to pass in the carry-over subjects in three consecutive examinations. 12. Most of the writ-petitioners before the learned Single Judge had passed the examination but not within the prescribed time limit or the number of attempts available, viz., three consecutive examinations. Precisely for that reason, viz., the breach of the condition in regulation 7 and 8, their results were withheld by the University. 13. We have, for the present purpose, not gone into the details of the facts of cases of the respective writ petitioners. 14. On behalf of the writ petitioners/students, it has been contended that once admit-card was issued to a student, who appeared in the examination and was successful, the result cannot be withheld only for the reason that such student had not passed within the three consecutive years of his having failed in a particular year. 15. The grant of admit-card and the University allowing the student to appear in the examination only signified that such regulation has been waived in favour of the student by the University. 16. Apart from this, it was urged on behalf of the students that not publishing the results of such students would tantamount to spoiling their career and also disturbing the academic environment in the University and in the respective Colleges affiliated with the University. 17. The refrain of the University, in general, has been that the Regulations of the University are required to be followed. If any method or manner is prescribed in which examinations are to be conducted, it cannot be given a go-by and the University be asked to publish the results of such students, merely on the ground that the student had successfully appeared in the examination. 18. In some of the judgements (refer to Sunil Kumar vs. B.N. Mandal University and Others; 2020 (4) PLJR 129 ; Mihir Kumar Jha vs. B.N. Mandal University and Others (LPA NO. 18. In some of the judgements (refer to Sunil Kumar vs. B.N. Mandal University and Others; 2020 (4) PLJR 129 ; Mihir Kumar Jha vs. B.N. Mandal University and Others (LPA NO. 904 of 2014); Mihir Kumar Jha vs. B.N. Mandal University and Others (CWJC No. 21660 of 2013); Sima Bharti vs. State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 4605 of 2018), it has been held that a Court of law would not exercise its extraordinary discretion by ignoring the regulation and rules of the University and thereby destroying its academic standard. 19. Regulation- 7.1 of the University mandates that a candidate must pass Part-III of the course in three consecutive examinations and no further chance could be availed. Even when a student is facilitated in appearing in the examination by a College in which he was enrolled, that would not put the University on any bind for not withholding the result; as issuance of the result would be in violation and breach of the rules made in that regard. 20. Some of the decisions reflected a contrarian opinion of the Benches by which the University was directed to publish the result. (refer to B.N. Mandal University and others vs. Amit Pratap Roy and Others (LPA No. 1702 of 2015); Lovely Kumari v B.N. Mandal University and Other: 2004 (2) PLJR 519 , Akhtar Imam vs. B.N. Mandal University and Others; 2002 (3) BLJR 1847). 21. The learned Advocates appearing for the students have laid great stress on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Krishan vs. Kuruksheta University, Kurukshetra; AIR 1976 (SC) 376 . In that case, a Government Teacher had joined the Law course in the University, where taking up of such course by people in service and attending the classes in the evening was facilitated. 22. According to the statute of the University, a student of the faculty of law was given an option to clear certain subjects in which he may have failed at one of the examinations before completing the three years course. The candidate, in his first year, had failed in three subjects, but he was promoted to Part-II of the course. He was not given his Roll number, which would have prevented him from re-appearing in the subjects in which he had failed. This was seen as refusal of the University to permit him to write the examination. 23. The candidate, in his first year, had failed in three subjects, but he was promoted to Part-II of the course. He was not given his Roll number, which would have prevented him from re-appearing in the subjects in which he had failed. This was seen as refusal of the University to permit him to write the examination. 23. Shortly after that, he was made accused in a criminal case in which he was later acquitted and was also reinstated in his employment. He had given an undertaking that if he were not allowed by his employer to join the law classes, he would abide by any order that the university may pass. On the basis of such undertaking, he was allowed to appear in part -II examination. However, he reneged from such undertaking, calling it unnecessary, and wanted the results to be published. However, the University informed him that he did not have the requisite percentage in part -I course and, therefore, his candidature was cancelled. 24. The University had taken the stand that the applicant was involved in a criminal case and, therefore, the Head of the Institution did not give him the certificate that he bore a good moral character and that the student was also short of the requisite percentage in LLB Part -I course. 25. The Supreme Court after going through the statutes and the facts of the case found that the University could withdraw the certificate, if the applicant had failed to attend the prescribed course of lecture. However, this could be done only before the examination. It was thus clear that once the student was allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, the statute which empowered the University to withdraw the candidature had worked itself out and the student could not be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity, which should have been looked into before permitting the student to appear in the examination. The logic behind the afore-noted view was that it was the duty of the University authorities to scrutinize the forms in order to find out whether everything was in order. Equally, it was the duty of the Head of the department of Law, before submitting the forms to the University, to see that the forms complied with all the requirements of the course. Equally, it was the duty of the Head of the department of Law, before submitting the forms to the University, to see that the forms complied with all the requirements of the course. If neither the HOD nor the University authorities took care to scrutinize the admission forms, the blame could not have been put on the student. It was thus held that the University authorities would be deemed to have acquiesced to the infirmities in the admission form and the student ought not to be allowed to suffer. 26. Deriving clue from the afore-noted judgment, the students urged that in any case, proper scrutiny was required to be made by the College/University authorities and if a student was permitted to appear in an examination beyond three consecutive years, it would only have meant the acquiescence of the University and in that case, the University could not have withheld the publication of result of such student. 27. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University ; 1986 Supreme Court 1448, which dealt with the case of students of Engineering Colleges, the Supreme Court noted that the blame for any wrongful admission in the College could not be put on the students but on the College Administration; the students ought not to be put in any difficult circumstance. A student ought not to suffer for the “lapses” or “sins” of the management of the Engineering Colleges. 28. Similar views were expressed in A. Sudha vs. University of Mysore; AIR 1987 (SC) 2305 and Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University ; AIR 1990 (SC) 1075 . 29. In Sanatan Gauda (supra), the Supreme Court was of the view that the University was estopped from refusing to declare the results or preventing the student from pursuing his final year course, if admission card was granted and the student was permitted to appear in the said examination. One of the Hon’ble Judges of the Bench while delivering a concurring judgement observed as follows:— “Before parting, I would like to impress upon the University authorities to frame the rules in such clear terms that it may not require great skill for understanding them. It is a serious matter if a student who acts upon one interpretation of the rule and spends a considerable period of his youth is later threatened by a possible alternative construction, which may cost him several years of his life. It is a serious matter if a student who acts upon one interpretation of the rule and spends a considerable period of his youth is later threatened by a possible alternative construction, which may cost him several years of his life. In order to achieve clarity, it does not matter, if the rule instead of being concise is elaborate and lengthy”. 30. In all the aforenoted cases, the University had allowed the students to appear in the examination. In that event, it has been argued, the University was precluded from withholding the result. 31. The only possible explanation for such view appears to be the career of the students as also the inaction or incompetence of the University authorities in not cross-checking the information regarding the eligibility of a student before issuing respective admit cards and permitting the students to write the examination. 32. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, the learned Advocate for B.N. Mandal University has vehemently argued that the University ought not to be asked to relax its rules. Many a times, respective constituent colleges themselves process the forms and it is impossible for the University to cross-check whether a student has been permitted to appear in the examination beyond three consecutive examinations held for the subject. It was only when such a breach was detected, the results were withheld. The University which is the authority to publish the result cannot squarely be blamed for faulty issuance of admit cards to students to appear in any examination. The regulation is very clear in its import. It may not be very happily worded but with respect to the cap of maximum number of years which a student may take for clearing the entire examination of a course has been fixed at three years. This by no means is any small relaxation. If the University would be asked to publish the results of such persons who have been successful in the examination but only after three consecutive years, it would lead to chaos in the University campus and would also be unfair to students whose results were not published on this ground in the past. There cannot be any estoppel against a statute or a regulation. 33. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that a regulation made by the University cannot be bypassed or ignored. There cannot be any estoppel against a statute or a regulation. 33. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that a regulation made by the University cannot be bypassed or ignored. True it is that in such an event, career of a student might get spoilt if his result is not published, but then there is no justification for giving premium to poor performance in the examination or laxity of a student in taking many and number of years to clear the respective parts of the course. B.A. Honours is designed as a three years course. It would bring about an anomalous scenario if a student would be permitted to pass B.A. Honours and B.A. General over an unusually long period of time. Merely because the career of a student would get a jolt, that cannot be any reason for allowing any more relaxation than what has already been prescribed. 34. After having said that, we are of the view that such students who did not pass in the respective papers in which they failed in three consecutive years or did not appear for three consecutive years, they ought not to have been permitted to appear in the examination in the first instance. This verification exercise should have been done by the Colleges and the University. Allowing a student to appear in the examination after giving him admit card would, in usual parlance, mean that the delay has been condoned by the University, regardless of the fact that there is no such provision for condonation of such delays in passing of the examination. 35. A regulation framed by the University has to be followed. 36. However, considering the career of the students and taking into account that an expansive and liberal interpretation has been given by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, specially when it concerned the students pursuing a regular course /vocational course, we deem it appropriate to settle the issue by holding that henceforth, Admit cards and permission to appear in the examination shall be given to the students only after full verification whether they are eligible for writing the examination. 37. 37. However, regard being had to some uncertainty that a student might have faced when he was permitted to appear in the examination beyond the mandate of the regulation and he became successful, we deem it appropriate to remit the individual cases to the University, for them to hear out the petitioners and give them a further relaxation of three more years, but only subject to the condition that there was no wrong representation or fraud on their part. This would only be limited to the writ petitioners and shall not be followed in rem. 38. This shall not be taken as any precedent. 39. The colleges and the University shall henceforth be careful in issuance of Admit Cards to the students and for any breach of rules, it shall be the college and the University which shall be held accountable for the same. 40. With the afore-noted observations and directions, the respective writ petitions are also disposed off for the writ petitioners to approach the concerned University for the needful. Nani Tagia, J.—I agree. Partha Sarthy, J.—I agree.