Jharkhand High Court
Ranjit Kumar Dokaniya vs The Vinoba Bhave University Through The ... on 5 September, 2018
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: D.N. Patel, Amitav K. Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 37 of 2016
-----
Ranjit Kumar Dokaniya, son of Late Permeshwar Lal Dokaniya, resident
of M/s Anandan Tuition, Dharhara Kothi Lane, Nayatola, Patna, P.O.
Bankipur, P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna (Bihar).
... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The Vinoba Bhave University through the vice Chancellor, Hazaribagh,
P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh.
2. The Vice-Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. &
District Hazaribagh.
3. The Controller of Examination, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh,
P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribagh.
4. The Director, B.I.T. Institute, P.O. & P.S. Sindri, District Dhanbad,
Jharkhand.
.... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
For the Appellant : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
For the University : Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, Advocate
For the BIT : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate
---------
th
19/Dated: 5 September, 2018
Oral order:
Per D.N. Patel, J.:
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 7631 of 2011 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 4th December, 2015 whereby, the prayer of this appellant (original petitioner) for the calculation of the marks in 4th year examination based upon the result of the year, 1992 should not have been accepted by the respondents because its result was already cancelled by the respondents and on the basis of the marks obtained in the year 1993 examination of 4th year Engineering the result should have been declared and 2nd prayer is that on the basis of circular dated 11th March, 1997 (Annexure-1/A), the 3rd year of Engineering marksheet may be retotaled, by converting external marks x 100 marks. The result of the 3rd year of Engineering was cleared by this appellant in the year, 1991 and the petition was preferred in the year, 2011.
2.2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the brilliant appellant (original petitioner) got his enrolment in Engineering in a Computer Faculty in the year, 1988 and slowly and steadily he cleared leisurely every year examination and last year's examination result was published in March, 2009. Thus, the journey of this appellant in Engineering Faculty is approximately 21 long years.
3. Every failure is a step of success for this appellant. Repeatedly failed appellant cleared his one by one Engineering examinations, sometimes on his own and sometimes by the orders of this Court. Varieties of writ petitions and Letters Patent Appeals filed since last several years one by one by this appellant.
4. This appellant has filed the following litigations in this Court:
(a) Writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1492 of 1993(R), for publication of result of 3rd year of Engineering, decided on 13th December, 1991;
(b) Writ petition bearing CWJC No. 3161 of 1999(R), for publication of result of 4th year, decided on 13th June, 2002;
(c) Writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.2011 of 2004 dismissed on 29th August, 2006 for the scrutiny of the result of the year 2003 of 4th year;
(d) L.P.A. No. 519 of 2006 which was allowed on 23rd August, 2007;
(e) Cont. Case (Civil) No. 4 of 2009.
5. After the battle of more than two decades in March, 2009, the final result was published of the Engineering examination of this appellant and he was declared 'PASS'.
6. Now this appellant has generated one more litigation for getting more marks in 3rd and 4th year examination of Engineering result i.e. writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.7631 of 2011, which is dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgement and order dated 4 th December, 2015 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by this appellant. Thus, there are 07 litigations generated by this appellant and has cleared his Engineering examination in 21 long years and now the 3. prayer before this Court is to increase the marks of 3rd year Engineering examination of which the result was declared in the year, 1991 as well as for increase in the marks of the 4th year examination result declared in the March, 2009 for which the examination was conducted in the year, 1994.
7. We see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal because several disputed question of facts have been involved for which the best remedy is to file a suit. Moreover, after much belated time, the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.7631 of 2011 has been preferred because the result of the 3rd year Engineering examination was declared in the year 1991 and it was accepted also by this appellant and hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in not allowing this prayer.
8. So far as the prayer for getting more marks in 4th year examination is concerned, it appears that the examination was conducted of the 4th year in the year 1994. The result was declared in the month of March, 2009 and the petition has been preferred in the year, 2011.
9. Much has been argued out by the counsel for the appellant to get more marks about external marks and internal marks of the examinations taken in the year 1992-93 and in the year 1994 etc. We are not accepting this argument also because much earlier these examinations were conducted and he has been declared 'Pass' in the month of March, 2009 and the petition is preferred in the year, 2011.
10. We see therefore, no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal as no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding W.P.(C) No. 7631 of 2011 vide judgment and order dated 4 th December, 2015. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.
(D.N. Patel, J.) (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) VK