RANA RANJEET SINGH Vs. VICECHANCELLOR BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Rana Ranjeet Singh and Ratnakar Tripathi filed this writ petition with the prayer to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Regulation framed and printed for the Sessions 2000-2001 to the extent of Clause 18, which imposes the limitation of 5 years in completing the course of M.C.A. of students of B.H.U. and further seeking a direction that the respondents be direction that the respondents be directed not to implement the aforesaid rules, Annexure-13 to the writ petition.

(2.) The respondents were directed to file counter-affidavit. They have filed counter-affidavit to which the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit. Under the interim order dated 28.2.2001 passed by this Court, which runs as under :-

(3.) Learned Counsel for the University submitted that it is correct that at the time when the petitioners were admitted, no time limit was prescribed. The ordinances with regard to Master of Computer Application course were not framed and in normal course students in the University in a course like Master of Computer application is six years but later on Regulations were framed which were approved by the Executive Council finally w.e.f. 1996-97 and onwards as mentioned in Annexure-CA 3 of the counter-affidavit of Lal Babu Lal. In view of the aforesaid fact, the contention of learned Counsel for the University Sri V.K. Upadhya that these Ordinances should have been deemed to govern the petitioners admission cannot be accepted. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the cases reported in (1990) 3 UPLBEC 1955 : 1988 (Supp.) SCC 740; 1988 UPLBEC 1066; 1987 (Vol. 3) SCC 622 and 1983 (Vol. 3) SCC 284. In view of the aforesaid cases the vested right that is accrued to the petitioners when the admission in M.C.A. to complete the same within a period of six years cannot be taken away by the University and particularly in view of the amended Resolution of the Executive Council by which the principal Ordinances for the Session 1996-97 and onwards clearly indicate that these Regulations did not apply to the petitioners admission.