Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

126. On 04.07.2022, when the case was again listed before this Court and additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Registrar of the respondent-University was taken on record and after concluding the arguments by counsel for the parties, the judgment was again reserved.

127. This Court finds that in the additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Registrar of the respondent-University, it was mentioned that serious human error has been committed by the subordinate (54 of 56) [CW-6207/2020] staff i.e. Section Officer and Senior Assistant and the envelope containing the degrees of the petitioners was wrongly handed over along with the degrees of BDS & MDS of 2019 & 2020 to the authorized Officer of the respondent-College, who was authorized to collect the degrees of the students of all courses.

129. It is further stated in the affidavit that no marksheet, no provisional certificate and no tabulation register of 16 students (the petitioners) was prepared and only degrees were issued in routine process by human error only and on noticing the said human error, email dated 23.06.2022 has been given to the respondent-College to immediately return the degrees to the respondent-University.

(55 of 56) [CW-6207/2020]

130. This Court finds that the University authorities who have issued the degrees to the respondent-College have acted in most irresponsible, callous and illegal manner. The fact of restraint order, being passed by the Division Bench of this Court, was very much in the knowledge of the University authorities and in spite of having the knowledge of such restraint order, if they have handed over the degrees of the petitioners to the respondent-College, they need to be dealt with by this Court in strict manner.

131. The explanation given in the additional affidavit by terming such action to be a human error and further only by giving letter of calling upon explanation from two subordinate staff i.e. Section Officer and Senior Assistant, is no solution/answer to the blunder committed by the University authorities.

132. This Court is also required to see the conduct of the respondent-Dental College as in what manner, admissions were granted by them to the petitioners and further in spite of the discharge order passed by the DCI in the year 2018, yet the petitioners were allowed to continue with their studies by permitting them to complete three year MDS Course and apparently made them eligible for claiming relief of appearing in the examination on completion of three years.