BASANTA KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1-University to issue the B.A. diploma and for a direction to opposite party No. 3 to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service benefits. The petitioner asserts that he appeared at the Annual B.A. Examination under the Utkal University in the year 1982 and having passed in the said examination joined as an Assistant Teacher on 19-7-1982 in Laxmi Narayan Krushak Sahajog High School, Sahapur. While he was continuing as a teacher of the said school, he joined B.Ed. Training in the Summer School-cum-Correspondence Course in Sitkhayak Mahasangha Institute of Education, Gurujang in 1986-87. To take the B. Ed. Examination, the petitioner was required to produce his original B.A. diploma and, therefore, he deposited the prescribed form and fee for the diploma in the University on 5-6-1987. Instead of giving him the required diploma, he was intimated that he was not eligible to get the same as in fact he had failed in the B.A. Examination. The School in which the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher coming to know that the petitioner has not passed the B.A. examination, required him to produce his certificates in support of educational qualification, but as he could not produce the same, the School directed him to work as a Clerk and not as an Assistant Teacher. In these premises, the petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ application for the reliefs as indicated earlier. The petitioner, asserts that after the results were declared, he received the mark-sheet from the College as per Annexure-1, wherein he was shown to have passed and he also obtained the College Leaving Certificate as per Annexure-2 and he joined as a Teacher in Laxmi Narayan Krushak Sahajog High School, Sahapur, on the basis of those two documents. The University, according to the petitioner, is estopped from now putting-forth it case that the mark-sheet that was given to the petitioner was a mistake and in fact, he had failed in the B.A. examination.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the University, the stand taken is that the petitioner did not pass the B.A. examination in the year 1982 and the mark-sheet obtained by him as per Annexure-1 is incorrect. So far as the mark-sheet issued to the petitioner is concerned, the University has taken a stand in the counter affidavit that the results of one Bamadeb Mohanty bearing roll No. 1038043 had been withheld for malpractice. The petitioner's roll number was 1038044. While transcribing the marks, the petitioner's marks inadvertently were transcribed in place of said Bamadev Mohanty and the marks of Biswanath Mohanty having roll number 1038045 were transcribed as against the petitioner. According to the counter affidavit of the University, the College was sent with the provisional result-sheet, annexed as Annexure-A/2 and that did not contain the name of the petitioner and the petitioner must be presumed to have knowledge of the same. In that view of the matter, when factually under the University Regulations the petitioner has not passed, though an erroneous mark-sheet appears to have been issued in favour of the petitioner by the College, the petitioner cannot be declared to have passed and the rule of estoppel will not apply against the University.

(3.) The College has also filed it counter affidavit, but there has been no averment in the said counter affidavit that the document (AnnexureA-2) was in fact put up on the notice-board or that the petitioner's knowledge to the said fact can be imputed. It has been stated in the counter affidavit of the College that Annexure-1 was issued to the petitioner on account of a bona fide mistake in the entries in the statement of marks published by the University and that would not confer any right on the petitioner.