Sayan Das vs The University Of Calcutta And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3046 Cal

Sl.No2
June 2,
 2022
Bpg & Sg


                        MAT No.839 of 2022
                                With
                          CAN 1 of 2022


                          Sayan Das
                             Versus
                     The University of Calcutta and others

                   Mr. Anindya Bose,
                   Mr. Ashok Kumar Das,
                   Mr. Diptendu Mandal,
                   Mr. Arindam Poali.
                                  ...for the appellant.

                   Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee,
                   Mr. Satyaki Banerjee.
                                  ...for the Calcutta University.


                      Learned counsel for the appellant contends

           that the respondent-university gave effect to a Circular

(vide notification no. CSR 27/2013 dated 16th

September, 2013), in place of the prior Circular (vide

notification no.CSR 123/2010 dated November 19,

2010) in debarring the petitioner from taking the Part-

III examination of the University.

Learned counsel further contends that, in

view of the petitioner having taken admission in the

year 2010, the 2010 Circular is applicable to the

petitioner and the University could not have given

effect to the 2013 Circular vis-à-vis the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the University,

however, argues that in terms of the ratio laid down in

the Division Bench judgment dated March 16, 2022

rendered in MAT 113 of 2022 (Pramod Kumar Mahato

Vs. University of Calcutta & Ors.), the admission of the

candidate does not create any right to the petitioner,

nor can the candidate's participation, having been

allowed mistakenly, override the statutory norms and

rules applicable in this regard.

In the present case, it is argued, the

University took a liberal view in favour of the students

and permitted the petitioner to take his Part-I

examinations by applying the 2013 Circular. However,

there is a specific bar in clause 33 of the 2010 Circular

regarding a candidate appearing in Part-III

examination within two years from the year of

qualifying Part-II examination.

In the present case, since the petitioner

cleared both Part-I and Part-II examinations in the

year 2020, that is, ten years after taking admission in

the course-in-question, by virtue of clause 30, read

with clause 33 of the 2010 Circular, the petitioner had

no right to participate in the Part-II examinations, let

alone Part-III.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties,

it is evident that, as per the 2010 Circular, which, even

if applied on the basis that the petitioner took

admission in the year 2010, clearly debars, under

Clause 33, a candidate from appearing at the Part-III

examination beyond the period of two years from the

year of qualifying thePart-II examination and from

participating in the Part-III examination beyond the

span of three years from the year of first appearance

for the Part-III examination.

Clause 30, however, specifically stipulates

that a candidate who has prosecuted a regular course

of study for the first year of the three-year course shall

have to appear at the Part-I examinations from two

years of the year of admission to the course and shall

have to clear the Part-I examinations within a span of

three years from the year of first appearance at the

Part-I examination, failing which he/she shall have to

prosecute a fresh course of study from the first year,

subject to the proviso of the said clause.

Thus, even if the 2010 Circular were to be

applied, the petitioner could not have appeared for his

Part II examinations, which is the stepping-stone for

taking the Part III examinations, since the individual

time periods for joining the Part I and II courses and

taking the Part I and II examinations had long expired

by the year 2020, when the petitioner cleared both the

Part I and Part II examinations.

In the present case, the petitioner cannot blow

hot and cold in the same breath by taking advantage of

the 2013 Circular for the purpose of taking the Part-I

examination but resiling therefrom and relying on the

2010 Circular for the purpose of getting clearance to

take the Part-II and Part-III examinations.

In the present case, even if the 2010 Circular

was to be applied, the petitioner would be debarred

from taking the Part-II examination beyond two years

from the year of qualifying the Part-I examination and

from clearing the Part-III examination beyond the span

of three years from the year of first appearance in Part-

II examination.

Thus, the present petitioner was not entitled,

on a composite reading of Clauses 30 and 33 of the

2010 Circular, to participate in the Part II

examinations, having jumped the mandatory

individual time-spans stipulated for the Part I and Part

II examinations after taking admission in the course.

The petitioner was erroneously afforded the advantage

of the 2013 Circular for taking his Part-I and Part II

examinations, which, ipso facto, cannot confer a right

on the petitioner to claim participation in the Part-III

examinations as well. Following the judgment of

Pramod Kumar Mahato (supra), the admission to the

University did not create any right in favour of the

petitioner, nor did the factum of his participation

having been allowed mistakenly in the Part-II

examinations, which would tantamount to overriding

the statutory norms and rules applicable in this

regard.

Hence, there is no scope of interference with

the order of the learned Single Judge, which ascribed

detailed reasons in consonance with the above

principles as enumerated in the relevant Circulars.

Accordingly, MAT 893 of 2022 along with CAN 1

of 2022 are dismissed without any order as to costs.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Krishna Rao, J.)