Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Argha Biswas & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 May, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
May 06,
2016
R.C.
W.P. 7202 (W) OF 2016
=-=-=
Argha Biswas & Ors
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
=-=-=-
Mr.Raja Biswas
...for Petitioner
Mr. Kollol Basu
Mr. Suman Banerjee
...for Respondent no.5
Md Yasin Ali Mrs.Tapati Samanta, ...for State There are four petitioners before me. All of them seek to participate for the B.A. Part-II examination.
The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that all the four petitioners have not been allowed to deposit their fees on the ground that they are not bona fide students of the University.
The University, State as also the college authorities are represented.
The learned advocate for the petitioner prays for interim relief. The University authority relies upon an affidavit affirmed on May 3, 2016.
The learned advocate for the University authorities submit that a combined petition filed by four petitioners is not maintainable. He submits that the Principal of the college had acted in excess of his powers in issuing admit cards to the petitioners in the Part-I examination. He refers to Regulation 8 of the West Bengal State University First Statutes 2014 and submits that apart from holding of examination no other authority has power to issue admit cards in favour 2 of the students to undertake examination in a graduate course. He submits on instructions that there exists an unholy nexus between the college authorities and a section of the students whereby the students are shown to be bona fide students of such colleges and are allowed to take part in examinations although such students are otherwise not qualified to take such examination. He submits that the University authorities are contemplating strict action against such erring colleges and the University authorities doing the needful.
The learned advocate for the University authorities submits that no interim order need be passed in the present matter. The college authorities should be directed to use an affidavit expeditiously, if they want to, and matter may be heard and dispose of finally.
The learned advocate for the University has referred a judgement reported at 2000 (1) Calcutta High Court Notes 618 (University of Calcutta and Others-Vs-Amit Kumar Jalan & Ors) and submits that even the Syndicate has no power to relax to percentage of attendance required for a student to be considered as a collegiate student. He refers to 1998 (2) Calcutta High Court Notes 61 the (Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors.-vs-Adarsh Kumar Sedhwrayar & Ors) and submits that a relief in the nature as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted even on humanitarian grounds.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
Four petitioners are before me. All of them have taken the Part-I general examination. They seek permission to sit for Part-II general examination. The last date for filling up of the forms without fine is today, May 6, 2016 and with fine the last date is May 14, 2016.
Although the University authorities have filed affidavit, the college has not filed any affidavit.
The learned advocate for the college submits that the college has forwarded the fees of the four petitioners to the University authorities.
3There are serious allegations levelled by the University authorities against the college authorities. One of such allegation is the exercise of excess power than the permitted by the First Statutes. The second is the induction of students, who ought not to be in the roll. Third is the of fees.
It is desirable that the college authorities are afforded one opportunity to use an affidavit to deal with these three allegations, apart from the other allegations levelled against them both by the petitioners and the University authorities.
However by inviting such affidavit, the time to deposit the fees for the Part-II examination may expire. Although the learned advocate for the University has requested the Court to take up the matter expeditiously and direct the college authorities to file affidavit within the date for the late payment of fees, in my view, sufficient opportunity should be granted to the college authorities file their affidavit.
In view of the submissions made on behalf of the college authorities that the petitioners are bona fide students and have deposited their fees within time and that the college authorities have in turn made over the fees to the University authorities on September 8, 2015, and keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have already taken the Part- I examinations, interest of justice would be subserved by permitting the petitioners to deposit the fees for the Part-II general examinations in course of the day and in the event the same is not possible, the authorities are directed to accept such fees from the petitioners if the same is tendered on May 9, 2016 without any late fees. The authorities will permit the petitioners to take the Part-II examinations. This permission is wholly without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties., The participation in the Part-II general examination will not create any right or any equity in favour of the petitioners.
In Amit Kumar Jalan (supra) the issue was whether the Syndicate has any power to consider a candidate who did not have the 4 requisite attendance to be a collegiate candidate or not. In such circumstances, the Court has come to the finding that Syndicate does not have such power.
In Adarsh Kumar Sedhwrayar & Ors. (supra) the question was whether a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can ask C.B.SE. to allow students of a school not affiliated with C.B.S.E. to take the examination. The fact scenario in the present case is absolutely different than the two decisions cited by the learned advocate for the University. The petitioners here are not seeking any exercise of power by any statutory authority. The petitioners claim themselves to be bona fide students and therefore are entitled to participate in an examination. Their claim as made in the petition is required to be adjudicated upon. Till such time a conclusive finding is arrived at on such issues the cannot be said not to be bona fide students and not entitled to take the examinations. In such circumstances the interim order will not create any equity or right in favour of the petitioners taking the examinations. In the event they are not allowed to undertake examination within time prescribed then serious prejudice would be cause to petitioners as a academic year would be lost to them. Such prejudice may not be compensated in terms of money alone.
The University authorities will not publish the result of any of the petitioners for the Part-II examination without the leave of the Court. Affidavit to be filed by the college will deal with the matters as discussed above. Such affidavit will be filed by May 20 2016.
List the writ petition on June 6, 2016 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties on priority basis after compliance of all formalities as to costs.
( DEBANGSU BASAK, J. )