Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Donode vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 567 of 2022
(ASHISH DONODE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 28-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri P. K. Naveriya, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rahul Deshmukh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Shreyash Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No.2/University.
With the consent finally heard.
The pivotal question tobe decided in this petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution is whether petitioners are entitled for a relief of
declaration of result of Vth Semester when admittedly forms were filled
between 1st to 6th of July, 2021 and till such time petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and 5
had not cleared their IInd Semester examination. So far petitioner No.3 is
concerned, she did not clear her first Semester examination before appearing
in IVth Semester examination.
The singular argument advanced by Shri Naveriya, learned counsel for
the petitioners is that once University permitted the petitioners to appear in the
examination of Vth Semester, there is no justification in not declaring the
result of said semester and not permitting the petitioners to get admission in
VIth Semester.
Sounding a contra note, Shri Shreyash Pandit, learned counsel for the
University, submits that the petitioners should have impleaded the College in
which they are studying. It is the College which provides necessary
information to the University. In the relevant form based on Ordinance a
condition was printed which makes it clear that unless previous semester
exams are cleared, petitioner is not entitled to reap the benefit of next
semester. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court
passed in W.P.No.12378/2019 (Brij Mohan Patel vs. State of M.P. and
others).
No other point is pressed by the parties.
We have heard learned counsel for the the parties at length and perused
the record.
Clause 3 of the document filed by the petitioners Annexure P/3 reads
as under :-
"Clause 3 - Promotion : Promotion from one semester
to the next will be independent of pass or failure in
examination provided the candidate has satisfied the
course and attendance requirements. A student shall not
be allowed to move to the Semester IV unless he/she has
passed Semester I examination. Similarly a student shall
not be allowed to move to the Semester V unless he/she
has passed the Semester II examination and likewise for
other higher semesters. For backlog students, two
attempts will be given in next two successive semesters
to clear it."
(Emphasis Supplied)
The condition mentioned in the said Clause is crystal clear that student
does not have any right to move to next semester unless he/she has passed
the previous semester examination.
In Brij Mohan Patel (supra), this Court opined as under :-
"7. In the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational
Society Etc. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and
another 1986 SCC (2) 667, the Supreme Court has held
"We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey
the statute to which it owes its existence and the
regulations made by the University itself. We cannot
imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than
a direction by the court to disobey the laws".
8. In the case of N.M. Nageshwaramma And Ors. Vs
State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. 1986 (supp) SCC
166,the Supreme Court has held that "If by a fiat of the
court we direct the Government to permit them to appear
at the examination we will practically be encouraging and
condoning the establishment of unauthorised
institutions".
9. The aforesaid two decisions have been considered
and relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of
Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya & Ors. Vs. Subhash
Rahangdale & Ors. 2012 (2) SCC 425, while rejecting the
plea of students who though wrongly admitted, had
perused their studies on account of interim orders of the
Court, to declare their result.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussions and taking into
consideration the provisions of Ordinance 111 of the
University, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs."
(Emphasis Supplied)
Shri Pandit, learned counsel for the University, during the course of
argument pointed out that Clause 3 reproduced hereinabove is based on the
Ordinance. The validity of Ordinance or Clause 3 is not subject matter of
challenge before us. Thus, we are enable to pass an order which runs
contrary to the Ordinance or the said condition. In view of condition No.3,
no case is made out for interference by the petitioners. Their cannot be any
estoppel against the Ordinance or statute.
Considering the aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere in this
petition. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
manju
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY
Date: 2022.01.28 16:25:14 IST
