RAMA GURUDAS KANKONKAR Vs. GOA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Considering the issue involved in the petition, the same is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. Hence Rule, returnable forthwith. HEARD by consent.

(2.) THE petitioner is a student of Degree course in Information Technology. THE Petitioner was admitted to the second respondent College in the year 2003 for Semester I of the said degree course. THE said Degree Course consists of eight semesters. As of April 2009, the petitioner had not cleared one subject each of semesters V and VI and five subjects of semester VII.

(3.) THE learned a counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the Circular dated 1st April 2009 issued by the first respondent University. He relied upon clause (iii) of the said Circular and pointed out that though in May 2009 the petitioner had backlog of more than six subjects, in view of the said clause he was qualified to appear for the semester VIII examination. He invited our attention to the Circular dated 6th April 2009 issued by the first respondent University by which the earlier Circular dated 1st April 2009 was clarified. THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said Circular makes it very clear that the petitioner was entitled to secure admission to semester VIII irrespective of number of backlogs up to semester VII. He submitted that the Circular dated 6th April 2009 explains the earlier Circular dated 1st April 2009 and therefore, the petitioner was eligible to keep terms of the semester VIII. Inviting our attention to additional affidavit of the petitioner, he pointed out that apart from the petitioner, admission was granted to other similarly placed students to the semester VIII and they were allowed to appear for the semester VIII examination. He submitted that the second respondent College admitted the petitioner to the semester VIII course after accepting fees from the petitioner. He submitted that the Circular dated 6th April 2009 shows that under the earlier Circular, notwithstanding backlog of more than six subjects, a student was permitted to keep term of the semester VIII. He submitted that the Circular dated 6th April 2009 was issued granting the same concession to the students to enable them to take admission in November/December 2009 to the semester VIII irrespective of backlog of more than 6 subjects. He submitted that it is a long- standing practice of the first-respondent University to admit such students in as much as invariably there is a delay in declaration of the result of the semester examinations of engineering. He submitted that the first respondent University has never cancelled the admission of the petitioner to the semester VIII course of the second respondent College. He submitted that the petitioner was allowed to appear for examination of the semester VIII in May 2009 without raising any objection. He submitted that there was no reason to withhold the result of the said examination of the petitioner. He submitted that now the first respondent cannot take up a stand that the petitioner was not eligible to take admission to semester VIII. He submitted that the very fact that Circular dated 6th April 2009 permits similarly placed students to take admission to semester VIII in November/December 2009 shows that the petitioner was eligible to take admission to the said semester in January 2009. He submitted that due to illegality on the part of the first respondent, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as now there is a new course in engineering degree and the petitioner was a student of old course. THE learned counsel lastly submitted that for reasons recorded, this Court allowed the petitioner to answer semester VIII examination held in May 2010. He prayed that the result of the petitioner be ordered to be declared.