KM MAXEY CHARAN Vs. ROHILKHAND UNIVERSITY BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 27-11-1984. Her results of the examination of B.A. part II and LL.B.I year have been cancelled. She also challenges the resolution of the Examination Committee dated 20-5-1986. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition may be put in brief compass.

(2.) The petitioner is said to have appeared in B.A. Part I examination from Bareilly College, which is affiliated to Rohilkhand University. Her roll number was 45455. She was declared successful. In 1983 the petitioner appeared in B. A. Part II examination and she was declared successful and is said to have passed the said examination in III Divison. In 1984 the petitioner is said to have appeared in LL.B.I year examination. However, she failed and sought permission to appear in the supplementary examination. On 27-11-1984 the Assistant Registrar (Confidential) of the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that she had failed in B.A. Part I examination, therefore, her result of B.A. Part II examination of 1983 has been cancelled and also the result of her LL.B.I. year examination has been cancelled. On receipt of this information the petitioner is said to have given a detailed reply to the Registrar (Exam) of the respondent No. 1. She did not receive any reply and is said to have sent a reminder also. However, a letter dated 20-7-1986 was sent to the petitioner by the Assistant Registrar (Confidential) of the respondent No. 1 informing her of the resolution dated 20-5-1986 of the Examination Committee. She was informed that she had been found guilty on the basis of the records of the Confidential Department, which were available by that time with the authorities.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that she was not given any opportunity of being heard and without mentioning any reason she was punished in violation of the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was held against the petitioner nor was she asked to explain her position. The impugned order of cancellation of results is said to be non-speaking. The belated action of the University was bad in law. The Examination Committee also had committed an error by attributing any guilt to the petitioner. After four years from the passing of B.A. Part I examination the action seems to have been taken against the petitioner for no fault of her. The petitioner was permitted to appear in B.A. Part II and LL.B. Ist year Examinations. The University has treated the petitioner as a successful candidate in B.A. part II and permitted to take examination in LL.B.I. year. Therefore, she could not be debarred from pursuing her studies. The University was estopped from cancelling the results of the examinations of the petitioner in the year 1986. The Examination Committee does not seem to have considered the full facts. The petitioner approached the University authorities, who advised her to approach the Court of law.