Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. The somewhat tenuous submission aforesaid has only to be noticed and rejected. A reading of the judgment in the case of Kumud Kumar (supra) and the operative part of which has been quoted earlier, can leave little manner of doubt about the intent and the tilt of the direction given to the University. Mr. Tara Kant Jha rightly pointed out both from the pleadings in the counter-affidavit and in his submissions at the bar that the University had acted as it did with regard to the case of the petitioners in Kumud Kumar Singh's case, in respectful deference to the observation of the Court. In the background of the judgment, a direction to accept the additional amount of Rs. 25/- per petitioner and to consider their case sympathetically, because it involved the educational equipment of the petitioners, could not but be read as a command to the University and it duly treated it with the respect due to the order of the High Court. However, to say that thereafter the University must nevertheless continue to act contrary to law and the provisions of its Regulations not qua the petitioners therein only but necessarily qua all others analogously situated, would be carrying the matter to illogical lengths. In any case, the said judgment having been overruled, no such submission is permissible. Plainly enough, no mandamus can be issued to perpetuate a mistake. If the law places a total ban on the students of unrecognised and unaffiliated institutions to take the examination of Bachelor of Education then it is not for this Court to override the same and of all things through the medium of a mandamus contrary to law. Indeed, Mr. Tara Kant Jha was right in submitting that the University might make a mistake or may have acted erroneously but the High Court cannot possibly mandate something contrary to law, or the perpetuation of an illegality. Consequently, he further submitted that in the situation no question of discrimination now arises and, indeed, it will be incongruous and a case of reverse discrimination in so far as the petitioners are seeking a mandamus contrary to statutory provisions and to perpetuate a direction in a judgment which stands overruled.