ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Anil Kumar Srivastava, wanted to appear at the 1972 M.Sc. Final (Mathematics) Exami nation conducted by the Allahabad University, which was due to commence on 15th of April. 1972. On 13th of April, 1972 the Registrar of the University in formed him that he could not appear in the examination as he had failed in the M.Sc. (Previous) examination held in the year 1971. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the peti tioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 14-4- 1972. claiming a writ of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to permit him to appear in the M.Sc. (Final) exa mination and to declare his result.

(2.) WHILE admitting the writ peti tion this Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear at the 1972 M. Sc. (Final) examination, but made it clear that declared of peti tioner's result would be subject to the ultimate decision in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, he appeared in the M. Sc. (Previous) Mathematics Examination conducted by the Univer sity of Allahabad in April/May. 1971 and his roll No. was 229. In due course the result of the M. Sc. (Prey.) exa mination was pasted on the notice board and was also published in the Northern India Patrika. showing that the petitioner has been successful in the M. Sc. (Prev.) examination. The University also issued a mark-sheet, dated 2nd of July, 1971. to him, showing that he had pass ed the M. Sc. (Prev.) examination. (Annexure 'A' to the writ petition). There after, the petitioner joined the M. Sc. (Final) classes and attended them regu larly. As the mark-sheet issued to him showed that he had received marks much below his expectations in two of the papers, he applied for scrutiny of his answer books of those two papers. In the application for scrutiny, it was specifically mentioned that he had been successful in the examination. On 11th of August, 1971, he was informed that scrutiny of his answer books did not reveal mistake and that his result re mained unaltered. In due course, the petitioner made an application for ap pearing at the 1972 M. Sc. (Final) exa mination which was due to commence from 15th of April, 1972. When the pe titioner went to take his admit card on 12th of April. 1972. he was inform ed that it had been withheld. He im mediately contacted the Assistant Regis trar of the University and was told that he could not appear in the M. Sc. (Final) examination as he had failed to pass 1he M. Sc. (Prey.) examination. The petitioner then approached the Regis trar on 13th of April. 1972 who also expressed his inability to permit the petitioner to appear in the M. Sc. (Fi nal) examination on the ground that he had failed to pass the M. Sc. (Prev.) examination. According to the petition er, he had passed the M. Sc. (Prev.) examination as was evident from the mark-sheet issued to him and the Re gistrar of the University had no jurisdiction to prevent him from appearing in the 1972 M. Sc. (Final) examination.

(3.) AT the hearing of _ the peti tion, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accepted the stand taken by the University that when the result of the M. Sc. (Previous) was published in Northern India Patrika, it was mention ed that petitioner's result had been withheld. He. however, disputes the stand taken by the University that there were any dues of the University or that the mark-sheet was issued to him in the month of July only after he clear ed them This controversy was raised by the petitioner merely for substantiating his case that when the result of M. Sc. (Prev.) in Mathematics was announced he was shown to have passed. In view of the fact that petitioner's counsel conceded before me that his result had in fact been withheld it is unnecessary for me to go into the controversy whe ther there were any dues against the petitioner and the mark-sheet was issu ed to him after the same were cleared. Learned counsel for the University was not able to point out any rule prescrib ing as to how the result of a candidate which has been withheld is to be de clared or published subsequently. In the circumstances I take it that the result of a candidate, which is withheld for some reasons, is declared by the Uni versity when it issues the mark-sheet to the candidate concerned. Position in this case therefore is that petitioner's result for M. Sc. (Previous) examination had been declared and he was shown to have passed the examination. This declaration of result, according to the University was made under a mistake and the University was not bound by it.