Saeid Reza Moein vs Punjabi University, Patiala and another

The petitioner herein complains that even though he had been awarded degree of M.A. in Public Administration and had been declared to have parsed B.A. Examination by the respondent University, the respondents are not issuing the Detailed Marks Certificate for B.A. Part I Examination passed by him in September, 1990. A few facts may be noticed.

The petitioner is an Iranian citizen. After passing 10+2 Examination, he joined B.A. Part II Correspondence Course at the Punjabi University, Patiala. He was allotted the Registration No. 2271-OC (P) 87. He passed B.A. Part II Examination in 1988. Thereafter, he joined as a regular student at Guru Gobind Sindh College, Chandigarh for B.A. Part III Examination in 1989. Soon after taking the examination, he went back to Iran and learnt that his B.A. Degree shall not he recognised as he had not studied for three years after passing the 10 + 2 Examination. It is averred that he joined the Punjabi University again and filled in his admission form. The petitioner avers that along with the admission form, he enclosed the Marks Sheet of B.A. Part II Examination and also mentioned his old registration number. This form was accepted on July 26, 1989 and Receipt No. 74048 was issued. Thereafter, he was issued Roll No. 31218 and he appeared in the examination held in April, 1990. His result was declared. He was placed in compartment in the subject of English. The petitioner submitted his admission form for appearing in the September Examination to clear the compartment in English. This form was received by the University on September 7, 1990. He was allotted Roll No. 4823 and he took the examination. Vide letter dated April30, 1991, a copy of which has been produced on record at Annexure P-4, he was provisionally declared to have passed the Examination in English by securing 62 marks. The petitioner passed M.A, in Public Administration Examination in the year 1992.

The only grievance of the petitioner is that even though his result of B.A. Part I Examination was provisionally declared by the University, the regular certificate as also the Detailed Marks Certificate are not being issued to him. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for the issue of a mandamus directing the respondent-University to declare the petitioner''s result and issue the necessary certificate.

A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of the University. It has been inter alia averred that under the old scheme, 10 + 2 Examination was equivalent to B.A. Part 1 while how after passing 10 + 2 Examination, a student has to study for three years for B.A./B.Sc. Course. It has been further averred that while submitting the application form, the petitioner had concealed the facts inasmuch as he "did not mention in the application form filled-in by him at the time of seeking admission to B.A. Part I that he had already passed B.A. Part II and Part III or that he had also passed M.A. Part I Examination from the Punjabi University. The petitioner knowingly withheld the information pertaining to his having already passed the examinations mentioned herein above at the time of seeking admission to B. A. Part I. In accordance with the Rules applicable in that behalf, no candidate can appear in two major examinations of the same faculty or different faculties in the same Calendar year". On this premises, the petitioner''s claim for the grant of necessary relief in this case has been contested,

The motion Bench had admitted the petition after hearing the counsel for the parties on July 24, 1992. After the admission of the writ petition, their Lordships were pleased to pass the following order;--

"After we have passed the above order, it was brought to our notice by Shri Nihal Chand Kinra. Leader of this Bench, that the petitioner is not a citizen of India and hence not competent to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. This point will be treated as preliminary point while disposing of writ petition by the Bench."

A perusal of Chapter III of the Constitution shows that while certain Fundamental Rights have been conferred on the citizen like time under Articles 16 and 19, a mandate has been given in Article 14 that "the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India". Even a foreigner will have the right to invoke Article 14 and complain against the discrimination if he is denied the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. For this purpose, he will have the remedies contemplated under the Constitution including the one under Article 226 of the Constitution. I see no impediment in the right of the petitioner or any fault in his approaching a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In my view, the petitioner is competent.

Coming to the merits of the controversy, it is evident that the petitioner had joined the Punjabi University, Patiala for B.A. Part II Course in June, 1987. He had admittedly passed this examination in the year 1988. Thereafter, he had appeared in B.A. Part III Examination of the Punjab University, Chandigarh in the year 1989. The application form for joining the B.A. Part I Session in 1989-90 was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent-University on July 26, 1989, The fact that the petitioner had passed B.A. Part II Examination, was mentioned in the application form. This is evident from the original form which has been produced by Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University. Further, there is an endorsement on this form showing that the certificate was returned by the University to the petitioner''s brother on May 17, 1990. It is thus evident that the original certificate remained with the University till May 17, 1990. Further, it is also recorded in the hand of some officer of the University on the application form that the petitioner had passed B.A. Part II (T.D.C.) Besides this, there is nothing on record to indicate that by 26 July, 1989, the petitioner''s result for B.A. Part III Examination had been declared or that a Certificate had been issued to him so as to enable him to mention that fact in the application form. In this situation, it is not understood as to how the University has accused the petitioner of concealing any facts. The fact that the petitioner had already passed B.A, Part II Examination was specifically mentioned. He had also given his University Registration Number. That being so, the assertion on behalf of the respondent-University that the petitioner was guilty of concealing material facts cannot be sustained. Still further, it appears to me clearly that the University is trying to take an advantage of its own wrong. The petitioner had specifically mentioned in the application form that he had passed B.A. Part II Examination. He had also produced the Result Card, His Registration Number was also available to the University. If it was their case that a candidate could not appear in B.A. Part I Examination after having passed B.A. Examination, the objection should have been raised by the respondent-University at that time. It took no action. In fact, it accepted the application. It accepted the fee. It allotted a Roll Number to the petitioner. He was even allowed to appear in the Examination. The University declared his result. It placed the petitioner In compartment in the subject of English, Thereafter, the petitioner applied for admission to take the compartment examination. He was permitted to do so without anybody raising the slightest objection. After he had taken the examination, even his result was declared on provisional basis. This result was conveyed to him vide letter dated April 13, 1991. After the communication of the result, the University is withholding the issue of a formal certificate for the last more than two years. Surely, this is not the way in which an academic Institution should deal with the students or examinees. The fault, if any, lay at the door of the University. Its officials failed to check of the relevant entries at the opportune time. Now it has accused the petitioner and put him to totally avoidable inconvenience and loss without any justifiable basis.

Equally untenable is the plea that the petitioner could not have taken two University Examinations at the same time. Reliance for this purpose has been placed on certain instructions issued to the candidates. Mr. Ashok Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent University states that along with the application form the detailed instructions are given to the candidates and Instruction No. 2 reads as under:

"No candidate can appear in two major examinations of the same or different faculties (Arts and Science etc.) in the same Calendar Year."

Firstly, it has not been shown as to under which rule or regulation these instructions are issued. Secondly, there is nothing to show as to which examinations are considered to be major or minor, Still further, it has not been shown that the University exercises any inter-University jurisdiction so as to debar a candidate from appearing in more than one examination. The petitioner did not take two major examinations in the same or different faculties of the Punjabi University. It has not been shown that there is any regulation debarring a candidate from appearing in any examination of another versity.

There is another aspect of the matter. So far as the Punjabi University is concerned, it had already admitted the petitioner to B.A. Part II Course in the year 1987. He has declared to have passed B.A. Part III Examination in the year 1989. It had conferred the degree of B.A on him. Once that had happened, the petitioner was appearing in B.A. Part I Examination only in order to comply with certain requirements which were in force in his native country. In such a situation, there was no justification for the University to withhold the petitioner''s result or to refuse to issue the certificates.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent-University is directed to supply the requisite certificate to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner will also be entitled to his costs which are assessed at Rs. 5000/-.

Petition allowed.