NEERA TANDON Vs. REGISTRAR KANPUR UNIVERSITY KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and none appears for respondent No. 3. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties the petition is being finally disposed of at admission stage.

(2.) IN her petition, the petitioner claimed that she appeared as a private can didate in M. A. Previous examination of Sociology for the year 1989 conducted by Kanpur University, Kanpur. The centre of examination allotted to her was Sewa Samiti Vidya Mandir INter College, Allahabad and the Roll Number allotted to her was 20215. Her case is that she appeared in all the four papers viz. , Sociological theories, Methods of Social Research, Social Stratification and Criminology and Social Divines. It is further alleged by her that after declaration of the result she enquired from the Kanpur University, Kanpur and was told that she has been shown absent in paper Nos. 3 and 4 on account of which she was declared fail although she passed in paper Nos. 1 and 2. She immediately contacted Principal of the examination centre respondent No. 3 and was informed by the Principal that she had appeared in all the four papers and the answer books were sent to the respective examiners. An application Annexure-1 was given to the Principal respondent No. 3 on which he made endorsement dated 11-12-89 stating that the petitioner had appeared in all the four papers. A representation was also sent through registered post to the Registrar, respondent No. 1 with copies to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, copy of which is Annexure- 3 to the writ petition. The respondents, however, did not take any ac tion on the representation made by the petitioner and arbitrarily declared her to have failed in the examination. After the petitioner failed to get the required relief from the respondents she approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed that by issuing a writ of man-damus the respondents may be directed to trace out the answer books of the petitioner in respect of question paper Nos. 3 and 4 pertaining to M. A. Previous Sociology, 1989 examination and to declare the result of the petitioner forthwith. Alternatively, in case the answer books are not traceable then the respondents may be directed to declare the petitioner passed on the basis of marks obtained by her in rest of the papers.

(3.) THE contention of the learned coun sel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is that since no marks were mentioned in the marks-sheet against petitioner's Roll num ber in paper No. 3 and since the Roll Num ber of the petitioner was not mentioned in marks sheet for paper No. 4 she must be deemed to have absented from appearing in these papers; that the answer books have since been weeded out it is not possible to trace out the same. Hence no relief could be granted to the petitioner.