JOHN TAYANG Vs. KIRORI MAL COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner seeksdirections to the respondent to allow him to be admitted in the second year B.A.(English) Hons. Class and also to permit him to take examination of the first year andthe second year B.A. (Hons.) together.

(2.) . The petitioner is a student of B.A. (Hons.), Kirori Mal College, University ofDelhi. It is alleged that the petitioner was taken illand as a result thereof fell shortof attendance. He, therefore, filed a representation before the Principal of respondent No. 1 for permitting him to appear in the first year examination of the B.A.(Hons.) and also undertook to make up the shortage of attendance in the secondyear. It appears from the copy of the representation produced by the respondentthat it was filed by.the petitioner before the Principal on 21/04/1994 whichhappened to be the first day of the examination for the first year B.A. (Hons)students. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination and was issuedan admit card. The petitioner however alleges that the first date of examination was 25/04/1994. However, this fact is controverted by Counsel for the respondent andit is pointed out that the examination was to take place on 21/04/1995. This clearlyshows that the petitioner was not aware of even the date of the examination. Be thatas it may, the petitioner was given permission to appear in the examination on 21/04/1995 itself. However, the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity and did notappear in any of the papers of the first year. It needs to be pointed out that the secondpaper of the first year examination was on 25/04/1994. Having not appeared inthe examination, the petitioner now claims that he should be. admitted in the secondyear and should be allowed to appear in examination of the first year and the secondyear. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondenthas wide discretion in granting request of the petitioner. However, learned Counselfor the petitioner was not able to point out any statutory provision in this regard. Onthe other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that no discretion isvested with any of the authorities to permit the petitioner to be admitted in thesecond year without having taken the first year examination. Learned Counsel forthe respondent, howevever, brought to my notice Appendix II of the Ordinance 8 ofthe University Calendar governing the examinations. This Ordinance reads as follows:-

(3.) . According to the Ordinance a candidate, who appears in the first year examination and does not pass but secures at least 40% marks in the aggregate except in one paper may be permitted to proceed to the second year class. Therefore the only discretionary power vested in the authorities is in regard to the admission of a student in second year, who secures 40% marks in the aggregate in all but one paper in the first year, if he is otherwise eligible and appears in the remaining paper alongwith papers of Part II examination.Having regard to the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writpetition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed but without any order as to costs.