AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhir Narain, J.—The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 821996 passed by Shri Sahuji Maharaj Viswa Vidyalay, Kanpur ( here in after referred to as the University) w here by the petitioner was refused permission to appear in back paper.
The petitioner was admitted to B.Sc. (Ag) course. He joined Kulbhaskar Ashram Degree College, Allahabad which is affiliated to the University. The petitioner appeared in B.Sc. (Ag) Part I Examination held in the year 1994. The result of the petitioner was not declared. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2283 of 1995 in this Court for declaration of his result. The University filed counteraffidavit taking the stand that the petitioner was not duly admitted in Kulbhaskar Ashram Degree College, Allahabad. The writ petition was allowed on the finding that the petitioner was eligible to appear in B.Sc. (Ag) examination. The University was directed to declare the result of the petitioner with in a period of three weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of the order.
In pursuance of the decision in that writ petition the University declared the result of the petitioner on 25th April, 1995. The petitioner was supplied a marksheet. In the marksheet it was shown that the petitioner had secured only 9 marks out of total 50 marks in III paper of B.Sc. (Ag) Part I. The petitioner was declared as failed. The petitioner applied for appearing in that Eaper on the basis that a candidate who has liled in one paper is entitled to appear in the supplementary examination of back paper. This application was rejected by the University on 8 21996 on the ground that the petitioner had appeared in B.Sc. (Ag) Part I examination in the year 1994 and he could have appeared in the back paper of the examination relating to the year 1994 in the year 1995 only. He was not entitled to appear in the examination in the year 1996. This order has been challenged in this writ petition.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University. In the counteraffidavit the stand taken by the University is that as the petitioner had failed in the examination in the year 1994. Under the rules, he was entitled to appear in the back paper in the following year i.e. 1995 but he could not appear after two years of the examination in which he failed. The University has relied upon the letters dated 22121994 and 231995. The letter dated 22121994 provides that a student shall be entitled to appear in the back paper only once provided the minimum marks obtained by such candidate in the examination is 33%. It further indicates that necessary information relating to examination of 1995 shall be notified soon. The letter dated 231995 provides that the candidates who have failed in 1994 examination are entitled to appear in the back paper in the year 1995.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that such condition is applicable only in respect of such candidates who had appeared in PostGraduate examination and not those who were appearing for graduate examination. The petitioner had appeared in B.Sc. (Ag) Part I examination in the year 1994. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon clauses Ka, Kha and Ga of the Letter dated 231995. Clause Ka relates to Post Graduate examination. Clause Kha relates to LL.B. examination and Clause Ga relates to those candidates who remained absent in back paper examination.
From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the petitioner was not in default. The result of the petitioner of the year 1994 B.Sc. (Ag) Part I was not declared and till the examination result was declared and marksheet was supplied to him, he could not have submitted the application for appearing in the back paper. As the result of the petitioner was not declared he had filed Writ Petition No. 2283 of 1995 which was allowed on 10th April, 1995 and in pursuance of the decision of this Court, the mark sheet was issued on 25th April, 1995 and after perusal of the mark sheet the petitioner could have applied for appearing in the back paper. He already lost one year because of non declaration of result. He could not have been denied that opportunity of appearing in the back paper. He could have appeared in the back paper only when his result was declared. The delay, if any, was on the part of the University and for the wrongs of the University thepetitioner cannot be punished.
7, Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 821996 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) is quashed. The petitioner was permitted to appear in back paper and if the result has not been declared, that shall be declared with in three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.