ROOP NARAIN CHAUDHARY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the counter-affidavit.

(2.) The petitioner appeared in B. Com. Part II examination, 1979-80 as regular student but he failed in the said examination. Thereafter, he appeared as ex-student in B. Com. Part II examination in the year 1981-1982 and 1983 but every time he failed in the examination. Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to appear as ex-student in B. Com. Part 11 examination in 1984 in which he was caught using unfair means as a result thereof the University cancelled the result of his Examination. Something happens with relation to his B. Com. Part li examination in the year 198S In which he was allowed to appear as ex-student This time, however, the University debarred him from appearing in the subsequent examination, 1986 The petitioner then applied and was permitted to appear in B. Com. Part II examination 1987 as ex-student. It is the result of this examination which was initially withheld and latter on cancelled vide order dated 17-11-1989. The Committee considering the petitioner's case as ex-student in its meeting held on 17-11-1987 is said to have cancelled the petitioner's examination by order dated 31-3-1988. The petitioner's request for declaring the result was rejected. The defence taken is that the petitioner has already taken more than 5 chances and he was not entitled to be permitted to appear in 1987 examination. Reliance is placed on behalf of the University on Ordinance of Chapter XXXV of 1987-88.

(3.) Heaving heard learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the opinion that when the petitioner was allowed to appear as ex-student in B Com. Part II examination 1987, the University is estopped either from withholding the result or cancelling the same merely on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to appear in the examination having already availed of more than specified number of chances in the examination. Ordinance which prescribes the maximum number of chances to the students to avail, stood exhausted, once the petitioner was permitted by the University to appear in 1987 examination. It is not the ease of the University that the petitioner played any fraud upon the University nor is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he had failed in B. Com Part II in previous years. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the University was estopped from taking the stand that the petitioner was not entitled to be permitted to appear in the examination.