ALAKHNANDA GARG Vs. JIWAJI UNIVERSITY GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor cancelling the examination of the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the controversy in this case are as under:-The petitioner joined the course of LL. B. Part I in Government College, shivpuri in 1972 as a regular student. She appeared in the year in LL. B. (Part I) examination. Thereafter, she appeared in LL. B. (Part II) examination as a woman candidate, that is to say, she appeared as a private candidate. She again got admission in LL. B. (Part III) for the session 1973-74. According to the petitioner, she studied as a regular student for the full academic year and was allowed to appear in LL. B. (Part III)second semester examination in the year 1974. The petitioner cleared the ll. B. (Part I), second semester in 1973-74. The petitioner appeared in LL. B. (Part III) second semester in July-August 1974 but she had not obtained the passing marks. The marks obtained by her in the second semester were communicated to her. In the year 1975, the petitioner submitted her form for appearing in LL. B. (Part III) first semester examination as an ex-student. She submitted this form, as was required, through the principal, Government College, Shivpuri. The University provisionally permitted her to appear in the LL. B. (Part III) first semester examination, 1974-75. The petitioner appeared in all the papers. Her result was withheld by the University. The petitioner then demanded to know as to why her result was withheld and she was informed that she was not eligible for admission in LL. B. (Part III) and asked her to show cause why her examination should not be cancelled. The University thereafter by the impugned order cancelled the examination of the petitioner.

(3.) THE Registrar of the University who has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents and who is in possession of the record has stated the facts of the case more clearly and it would be necessary to state them before we proceed to discuss the controversies arising in this case. The petitioner did not pass in LL. B. (Part I) examination in the first semester, 1972. A candidate is declared successful in the part examinations only when he or she passed both the semesters. It may be that the University communicated the marks obtained by the candidate in the semester in which he/she appeared but the University would only declare the candidate as having passed when the candidate successfully passed both the semesters. The petitioner appeared in LL. B. (Part II) examination in 1973. The result of the petitioner was not declared as she had not passed the LL. B. (Part I) examination till then. According to the respondents till the petitioner had passed Part II examination she was not entitled to be admitted to LL. B. (Part III) for 1973-74 session. The petitioner could not appear in LL. B. (Part III) examination in the year 1974 as she had not passed LL. B. (Part I) examination. The petitioner passed the LL. B. (Parti) in 1973-74 on 30-3-1974. After the petitioner cleared LL. B. (Part I) examination in 1974, her result for LL. B. (Part II) examination, both semesters, was declared on 25-11-1975. It is only after the result of LL. B. (Part I) and (Pan II) examinations of the petitioner was declared that the petitioner became eligible for admission to ll. B. (Part III) course.