Bheem Singh Khatana S/O Shri ... vs University Of Kota
2022 Latest Caselaw 6122 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13324/2022

Bheem Singh Khatana S/o Shri Natthee Singh Gurjar, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village Samaspur Post Khonchpuri Teh-
Mahwa Dausa Rajasthan 321608.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     University    Of       Kota,     Through         Its     Registrar,   Kota,
       Rajasthan.
2.     Principal Sorabh College Of Teacher Training, Khera,
       Hindan City Karauli 322234
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Rajesh Kumar
For Respondent(s)         :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

09/09/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

direction for the respondents to permit him to appear in one paper

of Advance Educational Research (Quantitative & Qualitative) of

M.Ed. Examination II Year-2022.

The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was

admitted in M.Ed. Two Years' Course in the respondent No.2-

College in the Academic Session 2018-19. He appeared in M.Ed.

Part I Examination-2019 and was declared pass. Thereafter, he

appeared in M.Ed. Part II Examination-2020 wherein, he remained

unsuccessful. He reappeared in two of the papers of M.Ed. Part II

Examination in the year 2021; but, he could not pass the same. It

is his case that now, he is not being permitted to write the M.Ed.

(2 of 6) [CW-13324/2022]

Part II Examination-2022. Therefore, the writ petition is filed with

the aforesaid prayer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court has, vide its order dated 19.01.2018 passed in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1001/2018; Manoj Meghvanshi

Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Anr., involving

identical controversy, allowed the petitioner therein to have one

more mercy chance over and above the attempts available as per

the ordinance. He submits that another similarly situated

candidate namely, Saiyad Hamid Ali, was permitted by the

respondent-University to appear in M.Ed. Examination-2021

beyond the permissible three years. He, therefore, prays that the

writ petition be allowed and the petitioner may be permitted to

write the M.Ed. Part II Examination-2022 in one of the papers.

Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the letter dated 16.05.2022 (Annexure 5) issued

by the respondent No.2, the Sorabh College of Teacher Training

reveals that candidature of the petitioner to write M.Ed. Part II

Examination-2022 has been rejected as the NCTE Regulations-

2014 and prospectus of the University permits passing the course

within maximum three academic sessions which, in petitioner's

case are already over. Since, the petitioner has not disputed the

aforesaid position, he is not entitled for any further chance to

appear in M.Ed. Part II Examination over and above the three

academic sessions. It is trite law that this Court in its writ

jurisdiction should not interfere with the academic discipline

provided under the relevant statute/regulations.

(3 of 6) [CW-13324/2022]

The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Council of

Homeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab & Others Vs.

Suchintan & Others; AIR 1994 SC 1761, held as under:-

"25. Here again, eligibility for admission to Second D.H.M.S. Examination is based on two conditions:

(i) A student has passed his First D.H.M.S. examination at the end of one year previously. This means one year must elapse between the passing of the first Year examination and taking of Second Year examination.

(ii) Subsequent to the passing the first Year,

(a) he must have regularly attended the courses both theoretical and practical;

(b) for a period of at least one year;

(c) to the satisfaction of the head of the college.

26. Thus, unless and until, these two conditions are satisfied, a student is ineligible for admission to the Second D.H.M.S. Examination.

27. to 32 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

33. Supposing he passes in that subject or subjects in the supplementary examination he is declared to have passed at the examination as a whole. This should obviously be so; because once he completes all the subjects, he has to necessarily be declared to have passed. Merely on this language, "declared to have passed at the examination as a whole", we are unable to understand as to how the "doctrine of relation back" could ever be invoked. The invocation of such a doctrine leads to strange results. When a candidate completes the subjects only in the supplementary examination, then alone, he passes the examination. It is that pass which is declared. If the "doctrine of relation back" is applied, it would have the effect of deeming to have passed in the annual examination, held at the end of 12 months, which on the face of it is untrue.

34. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

35. Whatever it is, a candidate has to complete all the subjects within four chances. Should he fail to do so, he will have to undergo the course in all

(4 of 6) [CW-13324/2022]

subjects for one year unless of course, he gets the exemption as stated in proviso to Clause (viii). Nowhere do we find in Regulation 11 'a system of carry forward'. On the contrary, it is detention every year. The High Court was moved by the fact that if a candidate were to pass in supplementary examination after passing the examination, he will have to remain at home till the next annual examination. So, he is allowed to undergo a course for next academic year provisionally. On this line of reasoning, clauses (iv) and (vi) of Regulation 11 are sought to be "harmoniously construed". We are unable to accept this line of reasoning or the so-called harmonious construction because it does violence to the language of the Regulation. It clearly violates the mandatory requirements of Regulation 9. It has already been noted as to what those requirements are. To repeat:

(i) The lapse of one year period between the passing of First D.H.M.S. examination.

(ii) Subsequent to the passing of the First D.H.M.S. examination to undergo the course of study for one year. Therefore, if a candidate passes in the supplementary examination, the requirement of one year cannot be enforced. Worse still is a case of a student who passes only at the next annual examination. Can he be allowed to take the Second D.H.M.S. examination without even completing the First ? Should he by chance pass the Second D.H.M.S. and not complete the First, since he is still one more chance to take this examination, what is to happen ? The situation is absurd. The same principle should apply to Regulation 10 where the lapse is one and half years.

to 38 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

39. If a student were to sit idle at home after passing the supplementary examination that is his own making. To avoid such a situation, the Regulations cannot be construed causing violence to the language."

In case of State Of Maharashtra Vs. Vikas Sahebrao

Roundale & Ors.; (1992) 3 SCR 792, the Hon'ble Apex Court

has held as under:-

"Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding

(5 of 6) [CW-13324/2022]

ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination."

The Hon'ble Apex Court has, in case of State of Tamil Nadu

Vs. St. Joseph Vs. Teachers Training Institute & Anr.;

(1991) 3 SCC 87, held as under:-

"The Court observed that any direction of the nature sought for permitting the students to appear at the examination without the institution being affiliated or recognised would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations. The Court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds Courts can not grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the Government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination. The directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law."

This Court has also, in cases of Rajesh Panwar Vs.

University Of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.3479/1990 and Rishiraj Sharma & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan

University of Health Sciences & Ors.;

MANU/RH/0067/2009, involving similar controversy, declined

the petitioners therein any chance over and above the chances

permissible under the relevant ordinances/regulations.

In the aforesaid circumstances, contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner based on an order of this Court in case

of Manoj Meghvanshi (supra) is of no help to him.

                                                                            (6 of 6)                [CW-13324/2022]



                                         Insofar as contention of             the learned counsel for the

petitioner qua another candidate namely Saiyad Hamid Ali is

concerned, it does not merit acceptance as his mark-sheet

(Annexure 6) does not reflect that he was permitted to avail

chances beyond the three academic years. The writ petition is also

bereft of any such averment that Mr. Ali was permitted to write

examination in violation of the NCTE Regulations-2014 and

University prospectus.

The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ

petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

PRAGATI/s-207

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)