SATISH KUMAR RAO Vs. GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 13 petitioners in this petition have sought Mandamus directing the Gorakhpur University to allow them to appear at the 5th semester examination of LL. B. Part III conducted by the said University and to declare their results.

(2.) The petitioners joined LL. B. course of the Gorakhpur University in Sant Vinoba Degree College, Deoria, which was affiliated to the Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. They appeared at the LL. B, Part I examination of the Gorakhpur University in 1977. On the declaration of the result, petitioners 1 to 11 were found to have failed while petitioners 12 and 13 were found eligible to appear at the supplementary examination in one of the papers. Petitioners 1 to 11 claimed that a joint application was filed by them to the Registrar, Gorakhpur University, for revaluation of their answer books of the subjects in which they had failed. Petitioners 12 and 13 appeared at the supplementary examination. The petitioners' assertion made in the writ petition was that by the revaluation petitioners 1 to 11 were found to have passed LL. B. Part I examination and, as such, were issued fresh mark sheetst whereas petitioners 12 and 13, who had appeared at the supplementary examination, were also supplied fresh mark sheets showing them having succeeded in the supplementary examination. On the basis of their results in LL. B. Part I, the petitioners joined LL. B. Part II in Sant Vinoba Degree College, Deoria, and appeared at the 3rd and 4th semester examination of LL. B. Part II in 1978. They had passed LL. B. Part II, the result of which was declared in May, 1979. After passing LL. B. Part II, the petitioner took admission in LL. B. Part III and paid the examination fee for appearing at the 5th semester examination of LL. B. Part III.

(3.) In the first week of October 1979, the petitioners, excepting petitioner 12, received notices from the Registrar, Gorakhpur University, calling upon them to show cause why the permission granted to them for appearing in LL. B. Part III examination be not cancelled, on the ground that they had not passed LL. B. Part I, and, as such, were not qualified to appear at LL. B. Part III examination. A similar notice was received by petitioner 12 on 10-10-1979. The petitioners, excepting petitioner 12, submitted their explanation on 5-10-1979 and refuted the charge that they had not passed the LL. B. Part I examination. Petitioner 12 submitted his explanation subsequently.