Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Tara Chand Gupta vs The University Of Ajmer on 30 October, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992(1)WLC16, 1991(2)WLN59
JUDGMENT S.N. Bhargava, J.
1. As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioner appeared in B.A. Second Year TDC examination in the Year 1987 as a private student and cleared all the papers except the one paper of Economics. He got supplementary in that paper. He appeared in the supplementary examination which was held somewhere in September-October, 1987. Meanwhile the petitioner filled in the form for IIIrd Year B.A. Examination on 21-11-1987 from Agrawal College, Jaipur, which was affiliated to the University of Ajmer. He also deposited the examination fee of Rs. 165/- with the aforesaid form which included Rs. 50/- for the B.A. Second Year TDC Ist paper Economics and Rs. 110/- for IIIrd Year Examination and Rs. 5/- for other charges. The examination fee tendered by the petitioner was accepted by the respondent and he was given admission card both for appearing in the IIIrd Year Examination, 1988 and for the due paper of Economics Paper-I of Second Year TDC. He was also given roll number. The petitioner appeared in B.A. Final Year Examination, 1988 and also in the due paper of Second Year i.e. Economics Paper-I. The result of both the examinations-IIIrd Year and due paper of Second Year was published in the newspaper on 25-7-1988 but the petitioner was shown as 'RL' which meant 'result lateron'. The petitioner approached the University authorities verbally and was informed that he was not eligible for B.A. third Year Examination as he has not passed B.A. Second Year and was also not eligible to appear in only one paper-supplementary paper, Economics Paper Ist. He ought to have appeared in all the papers of Second Year. The petitioner submitted a written representation to the University on 9-9-1988 and received a reply (Annexure-2), dated 16-9-1988. The petitioner again submitted a representation dated 26-9-1988 but he received no reply. Thereafter, he again submitted another representation on 12-10-1988 and ultimately, he had to give a notice for demand of justice on 22-12-1988 to which a reply had been received on 28-1-1989, where in it was submitted that the petitioner was permitted provisionally to appear at the Third Year TDC Arts examination, 1988 subject to the confirmation of his eligibility from the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Lateron, he was not found eligible for appearing in the IIIrd year examination, of TDC Arts, 1988 as per the provisions of the Ordinance 242-A of the University and therefore, the University had no alternative but to cancel his examination and thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 14-3-1989. Notices were issued on 16-3-1989 to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted and disposed of. A reply has been filed by the University on 15-5-1989, to which a rejoinder had also been filed by the petitioner on 24.7.1989.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filled up the form and it was for the University to check up before issuing the roll number and permission to sit in the examination. The petitioner after receiving the roll number and the admission card appeared both in the IIIrd Year Examination as also Economics Paper-I of IInd Year TDC and it is not fair on the part of the University to with-hold the result of the petitioner on technical grounds. The petitioner did not conceal anything. He had annexed with his application copy of the mark-sheet and in the form also, he had mentioned that he had appeared in the supplementary examination. He has placed reliance on Shri Krishan v. The Kunukshetra University wherein their lordships have held that once a candidate is allowed to take the examination rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. This authority was relied by the Delhi High Court in Inder Prakash v. Deputy Commissioner, Delhi and Ors. , which in turn has been relied by this Court in Harphool Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 Rajasthan 8 wherein a student had secured admission in Medical College on Reservation quota by giving false declaration. It was held that the authorities were estopped from cancelling the admission after the lapse of 3-4 years.
4. He has also placed reliance on Gulab Chand v. University of Jodhpur and Ors. 1985 (1) WLN 8, and Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University 1986 Suppl. SCC 740 wherein it was held as under:
Now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the engineering degree course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more upon the engineering college which granted admission than upon the appellants. The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these engineering college must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants.
5. He has further placed reliance on Akhok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and Ors. wherein it has been held as under:
When a candidate concealed nothing from the University and authorities granted admission to him after considering all the relevant facts, he cannot be made to suffer by putting in abeyance or cancelling his admission after his joining the classes for the mistake committed by the authorities themselves in granting the admission on the basis of a resolution which was contrary to University statutes.
6. He has also placed reliance on Sanatan Gauda v. Behampur University and Ors. wherein it has been held as under:
The appellant who was a student, was admitted, allowed to appear in examination and later admitted to the final year course but at the stage of declaration of his result of pre-Law and Inter Law examinations, objections to his ineligibility to be admitted to the Law Course were raised by University on the basis of its own interpretation of the relevant regulations. The University was estopped from refusing to declare the results of appellant's examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course. University cannot punish the student for negligence of Principal or University authorities.... It was the bounden duty of the University to have scrutinised the matter thoroughly before permitting the appellant to appear at the examination and not having done so it cannot refuse to publish his result.
7. Reliance has also been placed on an unreported decision of this Court in Sandhya Singh v. University of Rajasthan (Writ Petition No. 2193/1989, decided on 23-1-1991)., wherein the cases of Ashok Kumar Singhvi, Gulab Chand and Sanatan Gauda have been relied.
8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the University has submitted that the petitioner has concealed the fact from the University that he had failed in the supplementary examination of IInd Year TDC and therefore, this Court should not interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction and grant premium to a person who has not been honest and has concealed material facts from the University. He has further submitted that the University has no power to condone the matter. He has placed reliance on Ordinance 242-A which is quoted as under:
242. A:
(I) A candidate who, after passing the first year Examination of the University has attended a regular course of study in an affiliated college for one academic year shall be eligible for appearing at the Second Year Examination.
(II) A candidate who fails in one Optional/Core subject and/or in one or more compulsory subjects at the First Year TDC Exam, shall be eligible to appear in the due optional/core/compulsory subject(s) at the immediately following supplementary examination. A candidate who falls to clear the due optional/core subject at the said supplementary examination shall be required to reappear at the First Year Examination in full (excluding the compulsory subject (s) in which he has already passed. However, a candidate who passes in the due optional/core subject but again fails in the compulsory subject (s) at the said Supp. Exam, shall be permitted to re-appear in the failing Compulsory subject (s) only at the subsequent main and supplementary Exam, subject to the conditions laid down in Order 153-B. But he shall not be permitted to take the Second Year Exam, until he passes in all the compulsory subjects of the First Year TDC Examination. Inability to avail a chance shall be treated as failure.
(iii) A candidate who, after passing the Second Year Examination of the University has attended the regular course of study in an affiliated college for one academic year shall be eligible for appearing at the Final Year Exam.
(iv) A candidate who fails at the Second Year/Final Year supplementary Exam, shall be required to reappear at the Second Year/Final Year Examination in full.
9. Learned Counsel for the University has submitted that there can be no estoppel against the statute and has placed reliance on N. Setharamaiah v. Kotaiah .
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also gone through the various authorities cited at the bar.
11. The petitioner in his form has mentioned that he appeared in the supplementary examination of IInd Year TDC but he has not mentioned whether he passed or failed. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that he did enclose a copy of the mark-sheet along with the admission form and therefore, it was available to the University that he had failed in the supplementary examination. Moreover, it was the duty of the University to check thoroughly before issuing the admission card and the roll number and once having issued the admission card and the roll number to the petitioner, it is not open to the University now at this stage to say that since the petitioner was not eligible in view of Order 242 A they will not declare the result of the examination in which the petitioner did appear after the due permission given by the University itself. The petitioner appeared in 1988 and now we are in 1991 and it will be too harsh and hard for the petitioner to again appear once for IInd Year TDC in all the papers and if he passes out then after one year in IIIrd year TDC. That will mean he will have wait for at least another three year before becoming a graduate.
12. Keeping in mind the observations in the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
13. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the University of Ajmer directed to declare the result of the petitioner of B.A. Part-Ill of 1988 as well as that of due paper of B.A. Part-II Economics-I. Parties are left to bear their own costs.