Vikash Anand vs The Chancellor of Universities and Others

Aftab Alam, J.—The University has declined to declare the Petitioner''s result of B.A. Part III (Geograph) Honours on the ground that he had passed the Part I examination (as non collegiate student) and Part II examination (as collegiate student) in the same year 1997. It is not denied that after having passed the Part I and Part II examination (in the same year) the Petitioner was admitted to Part III, that he filled up the application form for appearing in the examination which was duly accepted by the University, that the University issued him an admit card for appearing in the Part III examination and on the basis of which the Petitioner appeared in the Part III examination. But now the University turns back and takes a plea that as the Petitioner had cleared Part I and Part II examinations in a manner not sanctioned by the rules, he should not have been allowed to appear in the Part III examination and hence, the University is not legally obliged to declare his result.

Mr. Anjan Chakraborty, counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that in an identical case of one Birendra Kumar the University had declared and published his result as would be evidenced from Annexure 8/A.

Counsel for the University was not in a position to deny this fact.

Mr. Chakraborty also invited my attention to an earlier order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9827 of 1999; Pashupti Sharma v. The Chancellor of the Universities and Ors. It is evident that the facts of this case and the case of Pashupati Sharma are quite identical but the counsel for the University pointed out that in that order in the last paragraph it was observed that the order will not make a precedent.

I, however, see no reason not to allow this writ petition also in the same terms as the aforesaid case of Pashupati Sharma.

The University is accordingly directed to publish the result of the Petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

At this stage Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Counsel appearing for the Chancellor made a very useful suggestion. Mr. Kishore stated that this kind of mistakes are mostly committed due to the fact that the relevant regulation of the University was not widely circulated and it was not known either to the students or the college authorities. He therefore, suggested that the relevant regulation of the University should be duly incorporated in the University''s prospectus issued with the application form for admission in Part III of the B.A. course. If the relevant regulation is duly shown in the prospectus itself then it will have much wider circulation and such cases would be screened off at the stage of admission to Part III of the B.A. course itself.

The suggestion is worth accepting and the University should consider incorporating the relevant regulation in its prospectus issued with the application form for admission to Part III of the B.A. course.

In the result this writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations.