PRANAYA BALLARI MOHANTY Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the decision of the Examination Committee of the Utkal University dated 21.8.2012 in canceling her result of M.A. (Odia) Non-Collegiate Examination, 1991 under Annexure-3 and the consequential resolution of the Syndicate dated 24.7.2013 and the notification dated 4.1.2013. The petitioner's case in nutshell is that after passing the Matriculation Examination, she got herself admitted in I.A. course in Christ College, Cuttack under the Utkal University and was enrolled as a student of Utkal University vide Registration No. 28628/80. As per the University Regulation, once a student is allotted a registration number, the same is to be continued as his/her identity till he/she continues study under the University or takes migration certificate from the University. The petitioner appeared I.A., B.A. and M.A. Examinations with the said registration number. She secured 48.875% of marks in M.A. Examination, 1986 from Ravenshaw College, Cuttack. But in order to enhance her percentage of marks in M.A. Examination, she applied to the Utkal University to appear the M.A. (Odia) Examination as a private candidate in the year 1991 with the same registration No. 28628/80. On proper verification/scrutiny of the records and the application form, the University had issued admit card to the petitioner and she was allowed to appear the M.A. Examination, 1991 and also in the year 1992 as a private candidate with Roll No. 2199P115 with registration No. 28628/80 and passed the said examination securing 58.5% of marks vide Annexure-2 series. Considering her percentage of marks secured, she joined as a Lecturer in Odia as against 1st post in Lakheswar Womens' College, Phulnakhara on 3.7.1995 and has been continuing as such in the said college. With the said percentage of marks in M.A. Examination, the petitioner was also allowed to complete her Ph. D. Degree in the year 2001. The dispute arose when one Dr. Gitanjali Panda, who was appointed as a Lecturer in Odia against the 2nd post of the college, filed G.I.A. Case No. 809 of 2012 claiming seniority over the petitioner and block grant against the 1st post of Lecturer in Odia on the ground that the petitioner has not been validly appointed in the college and her result in M.A. (Odia) Non-Collegiate Examination, 1991 has been cancelled by the University referring to the letter dated 21.8.2012 under Annexure-3. The fact of such cancellation of the result only came to the knowledge of the petitioner on the basis of the counter filed by the University in G.I.A. Case No. 809 of 2012. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed challenging such decision of the Examination Committee of the University dated 21.8.2012 under Annexure-3 and the consequential resolution of the Syndicate dated 24.7.2013 and the notification dated 4.11.2013 under Annexure-3A.

(2.) Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their counter affidavit admitting the fact that the petitioner had appeared M.A. Examination as a regular candidate from Ravenshaw College in the year 1986 and passed the said examination securing 48.87% of marks and she had also appeared the M.A. (Odia) Non-Collegiate Examination, 1991 having Roll No. 2199P115 securing 433 marks out of 800 and repeat examination as a private candidate in the year 1992 securing 466 marks out of 800. It is stated that as per Clause 2(A)(b) of the instruction issued by the Utkal University any registered student of the Utkal University who has passed M.A. Examination from Utkal University or some other University recognized by the Academic Council as equivalent thereto may be permitted to appear at the Part-I Examination of Master of Arts as Non-Collegiate (Private) candidate in any branch other than that in which he/she was previously examined. It is stated that the petitioner having suppressed the fact of her passing M.A. Examination previously as a regular candidate from Ravenshaw College, she appeared as a Non-Collegiate Private Candidate in the year 1991 and thereafter repeat examination in 1992. Her appearance as private candidate in the subsequent examination has been made due to misrepresentation/suppression of the fact. Hence, the authorities have rightly taken a decision for cancellation of the degree when the said fact has been brought to the notice of the authorities. In view of such position, the action taken by the University authorities is wholly and fully justified and this Court should not interfere with the said decision.

(3.) Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner after having passed M.A. (Odia) Examination in 1992, was awarded with Ph. D. degree in Odia by the same University by virtue of which she is continuing as a Lecturer, as a result the petitioner has changed her position basing upon the very same result and cancellation of the same after twenty years without giving any opportunity of hearing is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Above all such drastic action of the University is hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Therefore, this Court in exercise of the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should quash Annexure-3 and 3A, which have been passed by the authorities. In order to substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1987 AIR(SC) 2414B.L. Sreedhar and others v. K.M. Munireddy, 2003 AIR(SC) 578Reeta Lenka v. Berhampur University and another,1992 2 OLR 341, David C. Jhan v. Principal Ispat College, Rourkela and others, 1984 1 OrissaLR 564and Ambika Prasad Mohanty v. Orissa Engineering College and another, 1989 1 OrissaLR 440.