Md. Helal vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 8 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7882 of 2020
     ======================================================

Md. Helal son of Alamgir Ansari resident of Kukraun Paschim, Kukraun, P.S.- Dhamdaha, Dist.- Purnia, Amarikukraon, Bihar- 854205.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar.

2. Vice Chancellor, Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura, Bihar.

3. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura, Bihar through its Registrar.

4. Controller of Examination, Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mrs.Shilpa Singh, G.A.12 Ms. Abhanjali AC to GA-12 For the University : Mr. Ritesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-01-2021

The facts of this case are not in dispute. The

petitioner was student of Bachelor of Science (Hons), Chemistry

in R.K.K. College, Purnea. The examination for the course is

held in three parts. The petitioner had passed Part-I examination

in 2014. In Part-II examination held in 2015, he appeared but

failed in Chemistry(Hons,) and Mathematics (Subsidiary). He

again appeared in Part-II examination in 2016 but again failed in

Chemistry (Hons.) paper though, this time he could clear his

mathematics (subsidiary) paper. In 2017 he did not appear in Patna High Court CWJC No.7882 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

B.Sc. Part-II examination. The petitioner had though failed in

B.Sc. Part-II examination in 2015, he was granted promotion to

Part-III of the course under Examination Regulations of the

University. He had taken admission in B.Sc. Part-III in the

same year but he did not appear in Part-III examination held in

2016,2017 and 2018. He appeared in B.Sc Part-III examination

in the year 2019. His result of B.Sc. (Hons.) Part-III

examination is not being published by the affiliating University,

viz, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura.

2. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has filed

this writ application, seeking following directions:-

"i. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for giving direction to the respondents concerned to declare the final result of the petitioner's complete course (Bachelors in Science) which got completed in January, 2020.

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent University to issue the mark sheet and the degree of the petitioner after the declaration of result which has been kept in pending by the University."

3. It is the petitioner's case that due to various reasons

including his sickness and the accident which he had met, he

had missed to appear and had failed also when he appeared in Patna High Court CWJC No.7882 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

Part-II examination. It is the petitioner's case that once he was

allowed to appear in Part-III examination, his final result ought

to have been declared.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

University and relying on Regulation 7.1 of the Examination

Regulation of the University, it is being contended that no

student can be admitted in B.Sc. (General) Part-III or B.Sc.

(Hons.) Part-III Class unless he has passed the B.Sc.Part-II

examination. It, however, provides that if a student fails in, or

fails to appear at, not more than two subjects at the B.Sc.

(General/Honours) Part-I/II examination, he shall be permitted

to the next higher class but he shall not be eligible for admission

to Part-III class unless he hs passed the B.Sc. (Hons.) part-I

examination in the subjects concerned. It further provides that

"this facility for appearing in such carry over subject/subjects

shall be available to a student at not more than three consecutive

examination.

5. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that once the

petitioner was allowed to appear in the third Semester

examination, his result could not have been withheld on the

ground that he was not eligible to appear in the said examination Patna High Court CWJC No.7882 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

in terms of the Examination Regulation. He has placed heavy

reliance on Supreme Court's decision in case of Shri Krishan

Vs. Kurukshetra University, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 311, in

support of his contention that if the University allowed a

candidate to sit and participate in the examination, they are

precluded from holding back the result of a candidate. It is to be

noted that the petitioner does not dispute the position that in

terms of the Examination Regulation, he was not eligible to

appear in Part-III examination.

6. The question as to whether the University may

withhold result of a candidate who was allowed or managed to

appear in an examination contrary to Examination Regulation

had arisen in similar circumstance before this Court in case of

Mihir Kumar Jha Vs. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal

University (CWJC No. 21660 of 2013). Dealing with the

decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Case of Shri

Krishna Vs. Kurukshetra University(supra) this Court held in

its judgment dated 24.04.2014 to the following effect:-

"Counsel for the petitioner relies on two decisions in support of the relief he is looking for. First is the case of Vikash Anand Vrs. The Chancellor of the University, reported in 2001 (4) PLJR 72, wherein a learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that the Patna High Court CWJC No.7882 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

petitioner was allowed to sit in the examination and participate, even though illegally, but thereafter since the university was held responsible for allowing such leverage to the petitioner, direction was issued for declaration of his result. The other proposition, which he has relied upon is in the case of Shri Krishan Vrs. Kurukshetra University, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 311. In this decision, there is proposition that if the University allowed a candidate to sit and participate in the examination, they are precluded from holding back the result of a candidate.

Both the propositions, which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, are not of universal application. The facts have to be also looked into too. There is consistent performance of the petitioner in not clearing the examination every time and then after a long time gap he took an attempt at the final year in 2011, which too he could not clear within the specified time-frame and had to sit for examination again beyond the time- frame, indicated or laid down in regulation 7.1."

7. The Court further held in case of Mihir Kumar Jha

(supra) as under:-

"If the petitioner would have cleared his 3rd year examination, may be in the year 2011, there could have been arguable case for him, but since he has passed the 3rd year beyond the time-

Patna High Court CWJC No.7882 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

frame in the year 2012, giving any indulgence to the petitioner or direction to the respondents would amount to giving a complete go-bye to regulation, relating to examination as well as academic consistency and control of the University. Any indulgence to the petitioner at the High Court level will also become a referable point to all such students who are students more in name rather than in performance or deed.

The consistency with which petitioner has failed to clear his papers every year for the first two years and then even the 3rd year after two attempts, are enough for this Court not to exercise its extraordinary discretion by giving a go-bye to the regulations and rules of the University and destroy the academic standards of the University.

Writ application has no merit, it is dismissed."

8. Similar plea taken before this Court in case

of Sima Bharti Vs. State of Bihar and others (CWJC

No. 4605 of 2018) was rejected by an order dated

17.05.2018 as in that case promotion granted to the

petitioner to Part-III course itself was found to be

contrary to the Examination Regulation.

9. Reference may also be made in this regard to

this Court's decision in case of Ruchi Rachna Vs. The Patna High Court CWJC No.7882 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

State of Bihar and others ( CWJC No. 6114 of 2018),

wherein this Court held as under:-

"In the background of absence of any dispute that the petitioner appeared 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."

10. As has been held by this Court in case of

Mihir Kumar Jha (supra), the proposition laid down in

case of Shri Krishna Vs. Kurukshetra University

(supra) cannot be said to be of universal application to

the effect that the University allowed a candidate to sit

and participate in the examination, the University is

precluded from holding back a result of a candidate is Patna High Court CWJC No.7882 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

not of universal application.

11. In my opinion, this Court cannot pass an order

in breach of Examination Regulation since 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.

12. For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any

merit in this application.

13. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

14. Grant of relief as claimed by the petitioner,

in Court's opinion, shall be violative of Artictle 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.

15. Before I part with, I consider it appropriate to

direct the Vice-Chancellor of the University to cause an Patna High Court CWJC No.7882 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

inquiry into the circumstance in which the petitioner was

allowed to appear in Part-III examination in breach of the

Examination Regulation.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

arun/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          19.01.2021
Transmission Date