Shruhita Majumdar vs University Of Lucknow Lucknow ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8023 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23936 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Shruhita Majumdar
 
Respondent :- University Of Lucknow Lucknow Thru. Its Registrar And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Savitra Vardhan Singh,Agendra Sinha,Dhirendra Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the University.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was admitted for pursuing B.Ed Course which comprises of four semesters. The petitioner qualified the first and second semesters, however, while taking examination for the third semester, the petitioner got total of 29 marks in the paper 6814 - Measurement and Evaluation in Education and as per the marks-sheet downloaded from the Internet it was shown that she was eligible for back paper, it was also shown in the said result that she was promoted to Semester - IV. However, while obtaining marks-sheet from the University subsequently it revealed that in the said marks-sheet it was mentioned as 'failed' instead of EBP (Eligible for Back Paper) as shown in the marks-sheet downloaded by the petitioner from the website of the University.

It is stated that in the light of the information as available to the petitioner from the marks-sheet downloaded from the website of the University, the petitioner was issued an admit card to appear for back paper in the Paper No.1 - Measurement and Evaluation in Education simultaneously while appearing in the fourth semester examination.

Contention of the petitioner is that she appeared in terms of the admit card issued by the University, however, when the marks-sheet in respect of third semester was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner was shown to have passed in the paper in which she has taken the back paper examination i.e. Measurement and Evaluation in Education having secured 47 marks, however, in the other two papers of the third semester examination, the petitioner was shown to be absent and thus, the final result reflected 'failed' for Semester - III.

It is contended that the petitioner appeared in the fourth semester alongwith which the petitioner had taken back paper examination in one of the subjects of Semester - III and in which the petitioner cleared the fourth semesters also, thus, the final marks-sheet given to the petitioner by the University stated the petitioner to have passed in Semester - I, Semester - II and Semester - IV whereas she was shown to have failed in Semester - III.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the marks-sheet downloaded by the petitioner from the website, she was shown to be eligible for back paper which she took alongwith the Semester - IV examination in terms of the admit card issued by the university and after having passed, the stand of the university that the petitioner should have appeared in all the papers of third semester examination is arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. He further argues that the the petitioner had taken all the steps in pursuance to the marks-sheet downloaded as on account of covid pandemic, she had not taken the marks-sheet from the university and believing the marks-sheet downloaded from the website to be correct, she took all the steps for which the university never stopped her and in fact, issued an admit card enabling her to appear in the back paper alongwith the Semester - IV examination, thus, no fault could be found at the end of the petitioner. He, thus, argues that the petition is liable to be allowed.

Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the university states that the marks-sheet downloaded by the petitioner was indeed uploaded on the university website, however, in the records of the university, the marks-sheet issued to the petitioner of Semester - III examination showed her to have failed and in terms of the ordinance of the university, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have appeared in all the three papers of the third semester examination to qualify the same. He further argues that the petitioner was indeed issued an admit card to appear in the back paper of the subject in which she had failed alongwith Semester - IV examination and pleads that the same was erroneously issued to the petitioner. He, however, does not dispute that the petitioner has passed Semester - I, Semester - II and Semester - IV examinations. In the light of the ordinance, he argues that the petitioner should be directed to undergo Semester - III examination afresh.

He further argues that in the marks-sheet downloaded by the petitioner it was specifically mentioned that the university does not own for the errors or omission, if any, in the statement. He further argues that the university had framed a seven day window for getting any corrections done. He, thus, prays that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gautam v. University of Delhi & Ors. - 2003 (70) DRJ 271, the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of Sujata Patra v. The vice-Chancellor, Utkal University and Ors. - 2018 SCC OnLine Ori 418. He further places reliance on the judgments in the case of Shri Krishna v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra - (1976) 1 SCC 311, Ku. Firdous Bano v. The Jiwaji University and Ors. - 2012 SCC OnLine MP 8856 and Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University & Ors. - (1990) 3 SCC 23.

He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guru Nank Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Anr. - (2009) 1 SCC 610 wherein the following has been in Paras - 19 & 22:

"19. The first respondent was informed that he was not eligible only after he took the first semester examination. He has, however, also been permitted to continue the course and has completed the course in 2007. He has succeeded before the High Court. Now after four years, if it is to be held that he is not entitled to admission, four years of his career will be irretrievably lost. In the circumstances, it will be unfair and unjust to deny the first respondent the benefit of admission which was initially accepted and recognised by the appellant University.

22. Having regard to the above we are of the view that irrespective of the fact that MA (English) (OUS) degree secured by the first respondent from Annamalai University through distance education, may not be recognised as an equivalent to the Master's degree of the appellant University, his admission to the law course should not be cancelled. The appellant University is directed to treat the admission as regular admission and permit the first respondent to appear for the law examination, and if he has already appeared for the examination, declare his result. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

In the light of the said judgments, this Court is to consider whether the petitioner could appear in the sole paper in which the petitioner had failed in Semester - III examination while appearing in Semester - IV examination or she was required to appear in all the subjects of Semester - III examination alongwith Semester - IV examination.

The undisputed facts make it clear that the marks-sheet downloaded by the petitioner from the website clearly depicted her to be eligible for back paper, subsequently the issuance of admit card by the university which enabled the petitioner to appear in the sole paper of Semester - III examination alongwith Semester - IV examination clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was kept under an impression that she would have to appear in the single paper of Semester - III in which she has failed alongwith Semester - IV examination. The petitioner was never restrained or informed that she would have to appear in all the three papers of Semester - III examination. The university permitted the petitioner to appear and take examination and after having qualified in Semester - IV examination as well as the sole paper in which she had initially failed in the Semester - III examination, the university cannot resile and take stand that in terms of the ordinance, the petitioner was required to appear in all the papers of the Semester - III examination.

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already qualified in all the subjects of Semester - IV examination, the stand taken by the university is not tenable, as such, the writ petition is allowed.

The university is directed to issue a fresh marks-sheet to the petitioner showing her marks obtained in Semester - III examination taking into account the two papers for which the petitioner had earlier qualified in the Semester - III examination in the year 2019 and the paper for which the petitioner had taken the examination in 2020 alongwith Semester - IV examination.

The fresh marks-sheet as directed above, shall be issued to the petitioner within four weeks.

Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel shall communicate this order to the university for its compliance.

Order Date :- 26.7.2022

nishant