RAJESH EKKA Vs. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners were duly admitted in the course for Diploma in Personal Management in Rourkela Institute of Management Studies, Rourkela. The said course of Post Graduate Diploma in Personal Management (hereinafter referred to as the "PGDPM") is two years course divided into Part-I and Part-II. After completion of one year's study a student is entitled to appear at the Part-I of the Examination consisting of six papers. Under the Regulations meant for the said PGDPM Course a student may continue his study in Part-II without appearing at the Part-I Examination at the end of the first year and may appear at both Part-I and Part-II Examinations at the end of the 2nd year. The petitioners appeared in Part-I of the PGDPM Examination in 1996, but they failed to clear all the papers in the said Part I of the Examination. At the end of the 2nd year i.e. 1997 the petitioners applied for being permitted to appear in the Part-I of the Examination for the back papers and also in the Part-II of the Examination. The petitioners were permitted to appear at the Part-I Examination for the back papers, but they were denied permission to appear at the Part-II Examination in the same year. Being aggrieved the petitioners have filed this writ petition. By order dated October 3, 1997 Hon'ble Justice P. K. Misra was pleased to grant interim order that -

(2.) Under Clause 3(b) of the Regulationframed by the Sambalpur University for PGDPM Examination a candidate may at his option appear only in Part-I of the Examination or only at the Part-II of the Examination, if he has already passed Part-I or both in Part-I or Part-II together. According to the University authorities, a student can appear both in Part-I and Part-II of the Examination together, if he has not at all appeared at Part-I of the Examination, but if a candidate has appeared in the Part-I of the Examination and become unsuccessful, he is not entitled to appear at the Part-II of the Examination before clearing the Part-I of the Examination.

(3.) We have already referred to the relevant Clause 3(b). The interpretation sought to be put by the University on the 3rd part of Clause 3(b) cannot be accepted in view of the clear language of Clause 3(b). Second part of Clause 3(b) contains a restriction that a student can appear only in Part-II of the Examination only if he has already passed Part-I of the Examination. There is no restriction in 3rd part which permits a student to appear both in Part-I and Part-II of the Examination together in the same year. Acceptance of University's construction requires addition of words at the end of Clause 3(b) like "if he has not appeared at the Part-I of the Examination in the previous years". It is a settled rule of construction that where language is clear and unambiguous no words can be added or substracted or substituted to give it a different meaning.