Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rishi Kumar Sankhla vs Jai Narain Vyas University on 28 January, 2015
Equivalent citations: AIR 2015 (NOC) 563 (RAJ.)
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER :
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1988/2014
Rishi Kumar Sankhla
V/s
Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur & Anr.
Date of Order :: 28.1.2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Mr. Manish Tak, for the petitioner/s.
Mr. Deepesh Beniwal ) for the respondent/s.
Mr. Salil Trivedi )
-----
BY THE COURT:
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the action of the respondent-University in rejecting the petitioner's examination form of Bachelor of Arts ('B.A.') Part-III as non-collegiate student and a direction has been sought to allow the petitioner to take his B.A. Part-III Examination, 2014.
The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the petitioner took admission for the academic year 2011-12 for pursuing Bachelor of Computer Application ('BCA') Course as a regular student with a college affiliated with Maharshi Dayanand Sarswati University, Ajmer ('MDS University'); the petitioner passed his Ist year BCA in the academic year 2011-12; on account of certain exigencies, the petitioner could not pursue his study as a regular student. 2
The petitioner submitted his examination form as a non- collegiate student for appearing in B.A. Part-II in the year 2013; the petitioner was allowed to take the examination of B.A. Part-II by the respondent-University as by then the colleges were affiliated with Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur ('JNV University') instead of MDS University; the petitioner appeared in the examination and passed the same in 2013; whereafter the petitioner applied for appearing in B.A. Part-III Examination, 2014 as a non-collegiate student and submitted his on-line application form with requisite fee and the off-line examination form was also submitted.
It is then claimed in the petition that on 21.2.2014, the petitioner received a telephonic message from the respondent- University, by which he was informed that his application form for B.A. Part-III Examination, 2014 as a non-collegiate student will not be processed further and would be rejected; when the petitioner contacted the University to find out the reason for the proposed rejection, the same was not provided and therefore, an application was submitted in this regard and same was also sent by registered post.
Based on the above averments, it was alleged that no reason was being assigned by the University regarding rejection of petitioner's application form of B.A. Part-III Examination, 2014 and the relief as sought was prayed.
A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-University and it is inter-alia indicated that B.A. is a three years degree course and a student is eligible to appear in B.A. IInd year examination in the same subjects which he has 3 opted while pursuing his B.A. Part-I Examination; as the petitioner had not passed B.A. Part-I and as such, he was not eligible to appear in B.A. IInd year examination in the academic year 2012-13; the examination form for B.A. IInd year filled by the petitioner has been submitted as Annexure-R/1-1 and it is alleged that in the column pertaining to last qualifying examination instead of indicating the B.A. Ist year particulars, the petitioner indicated BCA Ist year particulars, which aspect could not be detected at the relevant time and the petitioner was provisionally allowed to appear in B.A. IInd year examination and it was clearly indicated on the admission card that if the applicant was not found eligible to appear, his examination was liable to be cancelled.
It is submitted that as the petitioner was not eligible to appear in B.A. IInd year examination during the academic session 2012-13, he was rightly refused permission to appear in B.A. IIIrd year Examination, 2014.
Ordinance 86B of the University has been relied on, it is indicated that the petitioner was informed about the reason in this regard.
A reply of the college has also been filed wherein it is indicated that the petitioner was not the student of respondent- College for the IInd year and the college only provided facility to the non-collegiate student to submit hard copy of the on-line examination form which is forwarded to the University. It was prayed that the writ petition against the respondent-college be dismissed with costs.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that 4 the petitioner having passed his B.A. IInd year Examination, 2013, the respondent-University is not justified in denying permission to appear in B.A. IIIrd year Examination; nowhere in the form meant for non-collegiate student filed as Annexure-R/1, the petitioner has suppressed any particulars regarding his having appeared at BCA Ist year examination as the form nowhere required indication regarding the course pursued in the first year; the petitioner having been permitted to appear in B.A. IInd year Examination and having passed the same, the University is not justified in denying permission to the petitioner to appear in B.A. IIIrd year Examination.
Reliance was placed on Ordinance 35 & 36 of the University Ordinances.
It is submitted that in case, the petitioner is not permitted to appear in B.A. IIIrd year Examination for the reasons given by the University his two years would be wasted and an alternative prayer was made that petitioner's result for the B.A. IIIrd year be declared, wherein the petitioner appeared on account of interim order passed by this Court and may be thereafter permitted to pass his B.A. Ist year Examination.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner were vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondent. It was submitted that the entire plea raised by the petitioner is absolutely baseless and has no foundation in law. It was submitted that only qualifying examination for appearing in B.A. IInd year Examination is B.A. Part-I Examination only and the petitioner having passed BCA Part-I Examination was not eligible / qualified to appear in B.A. IInd year Examination, 2013. 5 However, taking advantage of on-line application form and having filled the particulars of his BCA Part-I Examination in the column pertaining to qualifying examination, the petitioner was granted provisional permission to appear in the examination, which he passed. However, while scrutinizing his B.A. IIIrd year Examination form, the above discrepancy was revealed and therefore, he was rightly denied permission to appear in B.A. IIIrd year Examination, 2014.
Ordinance 86B is the relevant ordinance and the same clearly provides for admission to the students, who have passed the Part-I examination to be granted admission to Part-II and the student, who has passed his Ist year examination in one stream cannot be permitted to take up examination in a different stream in the IInd year and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
Alternative submissions made have also been objected to by counsel for the respondent- University as wholly baseless.
Learned counsel for the respondent-College reiterated the submissions indicated in its reply.
I have considered the rival submissions.
There is no dispute that the petitioner passed his Ist year as a BCA student, which is evident from his mark-sheet Annex.-1 and whereafter as a non-collegiate student, he passed his B.A. IInd year Examination, 2013, which is evident from his mark- sheet (Annex.3). Whereafter it appears that when the petitioner applied for B.A. IIIrd year Examination, 2014 and the documents / particulars were scrutinized by the respondent-University, the above aspect regarding change of stream from BCA in Ist year to 6 B.A. in the IInd year came to their notice and the same being impermissible as per the University Ordinance, the petitioner was denied permission to appear in B.A. Part-III Examination.
Ordinance 86B as quoted by the University in its reply reads as under:-
"86-B. (1) The candidates who have passed the Part- I Examination in Arts, Social Sciences, Science and Commerce excluding Agriculture, Home Science and Sanskrit Studies from any University recognized for the purpose by the Syndicate or from an autonomous College established by statutory provision may be granted admission to Part II class subject to the following:-
(a) Such candidates will not be required to appear in any compulsory / core / optional, subject of Part I Examination of the University. However, they will be required to offer the same subjects which they have offered at Part I Exam.
(b) The division of such candidates shall be worked out on the basis of marks obtained by them at the Part II and Part III Exams, only and a mention shall be made in their Degrees that the candidate obtained the Degree after two years' study of the course in the University.
2. A candidate who has passed I yr./ Part I exam, as a regular student from any University / autonomous college(s) established by statutory provisions may be granted admission to II Yr. / Part II Examination in the Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences, Commerce, Science excluding Agriculture and Sanskrit Studies of the University by the Vice Chancellor on the recommendation of the Dean of the Faculty, concerned on such terms and conditions as laid down by the Dean and the existing provisions with regard to II Yr. / Pt. III as laid down in the existing Ord.86-B may continue."
The above ordinance provides that the candidates who have passed the Part-I examination in various streams from any recognized University may be granted admission to Part II class. The ordinance further provides that such students would be granted admission to the IInd year / Part-II Examination in the respective faculty by the Vice Chancellor on the recommendation of the Dean of the faculty.
The above Ordinance clearly provides for grant of 7 admission to the students in the IInd year of th respective stream, even otherwise it is a well known and established fact regarding which a judicial notice can be taken that a three years degree course ('T.D.C.') has to be persuaded in the same stream for all the three years and the candidate / student is not permitted to change the stream after having passed the Ist year in a particular stream. As permission of such nature would result in a student pursuing studies in different streams in all the three years of his degree course and admittedly, it is nobody's case that the course of study under all the streams for the Ist year is the same and therefore, also such a course is practically inconceivable.
So far as the reliance placed on Ordinance 35 & 36 is concerned, the Ordinance 35 & 36 in so far as relevant reads as under:-
"O 35. No student shall be eligible for admission to the Course of Study for Part II of degree course unless he/she has passed :
...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... First Year T.D.C. Examination from any recognised University."
"O 36. No student shall be eligible for admission to the course of study for the Third Year Examination unless he / she has passed the Second Year T.D.C. Examination of this University."
A plain reading of the above Ordinance clearly provides that a student for eligibility for admission to the course of study for IInd year is required to pass Ist year Examination and for IIIrd year Examination is required to pass the IInd year Examination, the Ist year and IInd year have been qualified by T.D.C. i.e. Three Years Degree Course and the said provisions 8 cannot be read to mean that a student having passed Ist year or IInd year under any stream would be permitted to appear in any other stream in the IInd year or IIIrd year respectively. Therefore, the said Ordinance relied on by the petitioner does not advance the petitioner's cause.
So far as the fact of the University permitting the petitioner to appear in B.A. IInd year Examination is concerned, it is indeed surprising that how an student who is ineligible and / or has not passed the qualifying examination is permitted to appear in the examination by the University. Surprisingly enough despite having came to know of the above discrepancy, the University has not cancelled the petitioner's Part-II Examination, 2013.
The University is directed to take remedial measures in the on-line examination form so as to ensure that only the eligible / qualified students are granted permission, even if the same is provisional so as to ensure that the students do not loose precious time by misconstruing the requirements regarding eligible / qualifying examination.
So far as alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner seeking declaration of result of B.A. Part-III, which examination was given by him under interim orders of this Court and a permission to then appear for his B.A. Ist year Examination is concerned, the suggestion besides being wholly impractical, would result in a totally awkward and ridiculous situation wherein a student passes his IInd and IIIrd year examination first and whereafter passes Ist year examination, such a direction which leads to such a situation cannot be granted. Even otherwise, the petitioner was permitted to appear 9 in B.A. IIIrd year Examination provisionally and it was made clear that such appearance shall not create any right or equity in petitioner's favour.
In view of the above discussion, the petition being bereft of any substance, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
(ARUN BHANSALI), J.
rm/-