KIRANPAL SINGH CHOWLA Vs. GURU GHASIDAS UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner would call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 12.11.2016 (Annexure-?P/1) passed by respondent No.2, who is the controller of examination of respondent No.1/University informing the petitioner that after lapse of many years, his result of MBA (HR) examination of the year 1999 is not possible to be declared. Communication also states that the University is not possessed of any document of the petitioner's appearance and obtainment of marks in the said examination.

(2.) The petitioner obtained admission in the MBA (HR) Course in the year 1997, for the period 1997-?99. He claims to have appeared in all the internal and external examination of all the four semesters and has cleared all of them but did not apply for the mark sheet because he was busy in some household issues and moved out of the State for earning. On petitioner's request, the University provided mark sheet of 1st and 2nd semester (Annexure-?P/2) in which he was clearly shown to have appeared as regular student. In 2015, the petitioner decided to pursue PhD for which mark sheet and degrees of MBA examination were necessary. Therefore, he applied for the mark sheet, on which he was informed that he needs to deposit late fee under the various heads, therefore, the petitioner deposited Rs.15,952/-? in October, 2015. On 18.2.2016, the petitioner requested the University that he has cleared Pre-?PhD examination from Dr. C.V. Raman University, Kota, Bilaspur, therefore, mark sheet of 3 rd and 4th semester of MBA Course be supplied to him.

(3.) The petitioner's further assertion is that the respondents provided one rough sheet vide Annexure-?P/5 containing marks for theory and sessional examination, but in that rough sheet marks of one theory and several sessional examinations were not filled. It was orally informed to the petitioner that some teachers have not given sessional numbers of 3rd and 4th semester examination due to reasons best known to the University. The petitioner was eventually informed vide impugned order (Annexure-?P/1) that after lapse of several years, mark sheet cannot be supplied to him because the University does not possess the required documents. In an RTI query made by the petitioner, the respondents supplied to him one enquiry report wherein it was found that internal marks were not mentioned in the record of the University.