GOPAL KRISHNA GHOSE Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are shortly as follows : The petitioner passed the School-Final Examination from the National Council of Education, Jadavpur, in 1952. He then entered the City College, and in the year 1954 appeared in the I. A. Examination of the University of Calcutta as a regular student. He failed in this Examination. In 1955, he appeared in the same examination as a casual student. It appears that he was found guilty of malpractice at this examination and by an order of the Vice-Chancellor and the Syndicate of the Calcutta University, his examination for 1955 was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing in the 1956 Examination. On 6th September, 1956 the petitioner applied for permission to appear as an external student in the 1957 Examination, which was to be held sometime in March 1957. On 10th November, 1956 such permission was refused on the ground that he had not passed the Matriculation or the School Final Examination of the West Bengal Secondary Board of Education within the previous three years. On 24th November, 1956 he applied to appear as a casual student from the Charu Chandra College, wherein he had taken admission, passed the test and had deposited the necessary fees. It is stated that the Principal of the College duly certified his case and an Admit Card was issued, his roll No. being Cal-N 146. As the petitioner did not receive any reply to his application other than receiving the Admit Card, the application was renewed on 26th February, 1957 again through the Principal. It appears further that on 21st February, 1957 the Controller had made an order withholding the Admit Card.

(2.) The petitioner thereupon came up to this Court and a Rule was issued on 13th March, 1957 calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue directing them to forbear from giving effect to the order contained in the Memorandum dated 21st February, 1957 complained of in the petition, and/or why the said order should not be quashed and why such further or other order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. At first no interim order was granted but it appears from the minutes however that on 18th March, 1957 an order was made as follows:

(3.) Subsequently, the petitioner has been allowed to sit in the examination and it is stated before me that he has passed the examination, although his marks had been withheld from publication pending the disposal of this application. It appears from the pleadings that the stand taken on behalf of the respondents is that the Regulation 4-A in Chapter XXXI of the Regulations of the University of Calcutta (unrepealed) applies to the facts of this case, and the petitioner cannot be allowed to sit in the examination because prior to his appearing in the said examination he had not undergone a fresh course of study at least for one academical year preceding the examination. According to the petitioner, not Regulation 4-A but 4-B applies. The relevant part of Regulation 4-A runs as follows :