MANORAMA MISHRA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR PURVANCHAL VISHVAVIDYALAYA JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present litigation indicates a sorry state of affair, if not condemnable. Universities and educational institutions are expected to declare results within statutory period and in exceptional circumstances within some more reasonable time, But to go on permitting the students to appear in "next year class provisionally" in the hope of declaring the result of the earlier class and then failing to declare the result of both classes is bound to recoil adversely on the career of the students.

(2.) IT is high time that the State Government moves into the matter and the university's authorities get up from this slumber in which they have thrown themselves. If results cannot be declared within the stipulated period the officers of the respondent institution shall have no right to exist inasmuch as to draw salary at the cost of the State exchequer only to play with the career of the students. However, under what circumstances Purvanchal Vishvavidyalaya, Jaunpur has not declared the results of the students who have appeared provisionally in second year examination has to be probed by the Government of U. P. and report shall be- submitted to this Court within six weeks from today. This extreme step has to be ordered keeping in view the tragic facts of this case which may ultimately recoil heavily on the career of the petitioner, Kumari Manorama Mishra. Shri S. S. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter with ability and the Court is satisfied that had the rules been permitting laxity, perhaps the petitioner may have been permitted to appear oven at the third year examination though results have not bee,, declared concerning the Back paper of the first year as also all the pacers of the B. Sc. II year. Shri H. N. Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the Purvanchal Vishwavidyalaya, Taunpur has been heard in opposition. He will do well to send a certified copy of this order to the Vice-Chancellor with such advice as he may extend to him so as to see that such delay in declaration of result is not caused henceforth.

(3.) IT goes without saying that as per the Regulation 7-A of the aforesaid Examination Betterment Ordinances such a re-course is permissible. Perhaps there is a policy behind such a provision. If one student appears at the Back paper and gets through in it, it is likely to consume sometime. There after, it was thought that provisional admission as well as provisional permission to attend classes of the second year level and also provisionally appear at the examination of the second year, appear to have been made to save the year of the candidates. IT is so obvious, therefore, that no fault can be found with so much of the provisions because its purpose is laudable inasmuch as the students career in career is permitted to be maintained in the same year the candidate may have appeared as a regular candidate in the 2nd year examination if he or she was successful in the back-paper.