Patna High Court
Manorama Kumari vs The B.N. Mandal University on 8 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11923 of 2021
======================================================
Manorama Kumari, D/o Chandra Shekhar Yadav and Wife of Sanjay Yadav,
Resident of Village-Bhargama, Police Station-Shekhpura, District-Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The B.N. Mandal University Laloo Nagar, Madhepura through its Vice
Chancellor.
2. The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura.
3. The Examination Controller, B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar,
Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-12-2021
The petitioner in the present writ application under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking a direction
upon the respondent B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura (for
short the University) to declare her result of Bachelor of Arts in
Psychology (Hons.) Part-III Examination, 2018 held in 2019. It is
her grievance that though the result was published but her result
has been withheld.
2. Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was
admitted in B.A. (Hons.) course in the session 2012-13 with her
Registration No. 53549/2013. She appeared in B.A. Part-I (Hons.)
Examination, 2013, but she failed. In 2014, she did not appear in
Patna High Court CWJC No.11923 of 2021 dt.08-12-2021
B.A. Part I examination. She appeared in B.A. Part I examination
in 2015 and obtained 12 marks in R.B. (Rashtrabhasha) Hindi and
6+19= 25 marks in Psychology (two papers) and 34 marks in
practical and was thus declared disqualified. She again appeared
in B.A. Part I examination in the year 2016 only in R.B. Hindi
and did not appear in Honours papers. She had scored 33 marks
in R.B. Hindi. In the year 2017, she appeared in B.A. Part I
examination and obtained 37+40 = (2 papers of Psychology). Her
appearance in B.A. Part I examination in 2017 itself was in
contravention of the Examination Regulation of the University,
specifically Clause 7.1 thereof, which provides that if a student
fails to appear in examination for not more than two subjects in
B.A. (General/ Honours) Part I/II examination he/she shall be
promoted to the next higher class but shall not be eligible for
admission to B.A. (General) or B.A. (Hons.) Part III class unless
he/ she passes B.A. (General) or B.A. (Hons.) Part I examination
in the subject concerned. It further provides that the facility for
appearing in such carry over subject/ subjects shall be available
for a student at not more than three consecutive examinations.
3. It is the case of the University that the petitioner was
entitled to appear in B.A. Part I examinations in the years 2014,
2015 and 2016 by virtue of the Examination Regulation. She was
Patna High Court CWJC No.11923 of 2021 dt.08-12-2021
debarred from appearing in the examination in the year 2017 and
accordingly her result has not been published.
4. I have heard Mr. Umesh Prasad, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shashi Bhushan
Singh, learned counsel for the University.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that once the petitioner was allowed to appear in
B.A. Part III Examination, 2018, her result could not have been
withheld by the University on technical grounds. He has placed
reliance on Supreme Court's decision in case of Shri Krishan vs.
Kurukshetra University reported in 1976 (1) SCC 311. He has,
however, not been able to dispute the factual aspect that in terms
of Regulation 7.1 of the Examination Regulations the petitioner
was not eligible to appear in Part III examination as she had not
cleared B.A. Part I examination.
6. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the University opposing the petitioner's
claim has relied on Division Bench Decision of this Court
rendered on 07.01.2015 in L.P.A. No. 904 of 2014 (Mihir Kumar
Jha vs. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University & Ors.).
Reliance has also been placed on another Division Bench
decision of this Court in case of Sunil Kumar vs. Bhupendra
Patna High Court CWJC No.11923 of 2021 dt.08-12-2021
Narayan Mandal University & Ors. reported in 2020(4) PLJR
129. Reference has also been made to a decision of this Court
rendered on 04.01.2021 in CWJC No. 7882 of 2020 (Md. Helal
vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.).
7. Considering the nature of controversy, it would be
apt to notice Regulation 7.1 of the Examination Regulation of the
University which reads as under :-
"7.1 There shall be University
examination at the end of the
first, the second and the third
years of study to be known
respectively as the B.A.
(General/ Honours) Part I Part
II and Part III examination. No
student shall be admitted to the
B.A. (General) or B.A. (Honours)
Part II class unless he has
passed the B.A. (General) or
B.A. (Honours) Part I
examination and to the Part III
class unless he has passed the
Part II examination.
Provided that at a student fails in
or fails to appear at, not more
than two subjects at the B.A.
(General/ Honours) Part I/II
examination he shall be
promoted to the next higher class
but he shall not be eligible for
admission to the B.A. (General)
or B.A. (Honours) Part III class
unless he has passed the B.A.
(General) or B.A. (Honours)
Part I examination in the subject/
Patna High Court CWJC No.11923 of 2021 dt.08-12-2021
subjects concerned.
Provided further that this facility
for appearing in such carry over
subject/ subjects shall be
available to a student at not
more than three consecutive
examinations."
8. The Regulation, in no uncertain terms, provides that
a student who fails to appear at not more than two subjects at
B.A. (General/Hons.) Part I/II examination he/ she shall be
promoted to the next higher class. However, he/ she shall not be
eligible for admission to B.A. (General) or B.A. (Hons.) Part III
class unless he/ she has passed B.A. (Genral) or B.A. (Hons.) Part
I/II examination in the subject concerned. The second proviso
prescribes that the facility for appearing on such carry over
subject/ subjects shall be available to a student at not more than
three consecutive examinations.
9. By virtue of the said Regulation, the petitioner was
entitled to appear at B.A. Part I examination for the years 2014,
2015 and 2016. She appeared rather in 2017, which was
impermissible. Evidently, she was allowed to appear for B.A. Part
III examination in breach of the Examination Regulations.
10. The Division Bench in case of Mihir Kumar Jha
(supra) relying on the same Regulation 7.1 of the Examination
Regulations refused to grant relief of supply of mark-sheet and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11923 of 2021 dt.08-12-2021
provisional certificate of examination of a candidate of having
passed B.A. Part III examination. While refusing to grant the said
relied the Division Bench did take into account the Supreme
Court's decision in case of Shri Krishan (supra).
11. In case of Sunil Kumar (supra) this Court had to
again deal with a situation where a candidate was allowed to
appear in the examination contrary to Examination Regulations of
the University. Distinguishing the Supreme Court's decision in
case of Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal &
Anr. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 610, the Division Bench held in
paragraph 7 that failure in sessional work entails the consequence
of re-admission. In the said case, a private institution had
facilitated appearing of the appellant of that case in the
examination with no lapse on the part of the University. The
Division Bench held that the same could not be a ground to bind
or estop the University on account of its conduct, requiring this
Court to issue direction to the University to declare the results.
12. Similar plea taken before this Court in case of Sima
Bharti vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 4605 of 2018) was
rejected by an order dated 17.05.2018 upon noticing the fact that
the permission granted to the petitioner of that case to appear in
Part III examination itself was found to be contrary to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11923 of 2021 dt.08-12-2021
Examination Regulations. Further in a decision rendered in case
of Ruchi Rachna vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 6114
of 2018) this Court has held as under :-
"In the background of absence
of any dispute that the petitioner
papered fourth time after having
failed in her three attempts to
clear 3rd Semester Examination,
this Court cannot issue a
mandamus contrary to the
provisions under the Ordinance.
No relief, as sought in the
present application, can be
granted. The decision rendered
by this Court in case of Ranjeet
Kumar vs. V.C., J.P. University
(supra), does not lay down that
even if a student is allowed to
appear for examination against
the Regulations, his/ her result
shall be liable to be published
because he/ she was allowed to
appear. Matter would have been
different, had the petitioner
appeared fourth time in the 3rd
Semester Examination after
going through the course again
as stipulated in Clause IX(b) of
the Ordinance."
13. In case of Md. Helal (supra) this Court rejecting the
similar contention held in paragraphs 11 and 14 as under :-
"11. In my opinion, this Court
cannot pass an order in breach
of Examination Regulation since
Patna High Court CWJC No.11923 of 2021 dt.08-12-2021
publication of result in question,
of the petitioner, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, shall
permit and perpetuate illegality.
If the petitioner somehow or the
other managed to appear in
Part-III examination contrary to
Examination Regulation, the
Court cannot give his aid to
support such illegality by issuing
direction to the University to
publish the petitioner's result.
"14. Grant of relief as claimed
by the petitioner, in Court's
opinion, shall be violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of
India as in similar circumstance,
similarly situated students might
not have been given or might not
have availed the opportunity of
appearing in Part-III
examination in contravention of
the Examination Regulation."
14. In view of the above discussion and the law laid
down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, I do not find any
merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Rajesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.12.2021
Transmission Date NA
