SIBA PRASAD BARUAH Vs. DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Dibrugarh University and other Respondents praying for a writ 'of mandamus against them for commanding them to declare the Petitioner to have passed the Final Law Examination held by the University in 1967.

(2.) THE Petitioner obtained degree of Bachelor of Arts in the year 1963 and was admitted in the Jorhat Law College in 1965 which is a recognised professional college under the Dibrugarh University for prosecuting the Bachelor of Law degree course. The Dibrugarh University by the First Regulations relating to the Curricula and Syllabi of Post -graduate courses made the Law Course to be of two years' duration and was divided into Law (Previous) and Law (Final) one year for each part. The Law (Previous) Examination has six papers with 100 marks in each paper and the Law (Final) Examination similarly the remaining six papers with 100 marks in each paper. The Petitioner passed the Law (Previous) Examination obtaining more than 50% of the aggregate of the total marks. In due course, he sat for the Final Examination, but when the results were announced" he was not shown as successful candidate. In the Law (Previous) Examination he passed in all the papers and secured 357 out of 600 marks. In the Law (Final) Examination, although he secured more than 30% of marks, which is the minimum pass mark, in all the papers, his aggregate marks were only 267, that is to say, 33 marks less than 300 which is the minimum aggregate which, it is said, he is required to obtain in order to pass. The Petitioner represented to the University that he should have been declared to have passed the Law (Final) Examination in accordance with the Rules of the University, but the Respondents did not accede to the prayer. Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the University is wrong in applying the rules applicable to the Law Examination of the Gauhati University in failing the Petitioner. According to him, the University ought to have adopted the rules applicable to the Master of Arts degree o £ the Gauhati University where the examination is held in two parts, namely Previous and Final. The learned Counsel, in support of his submission, draws our attention to the First Regulations of the Dibrugarh University published in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary dated October 13, 1965 at page 616. By Article 3(1), the Curricula, Syllabi and Text Books for Post -Graduate Courses in such subjects as prescribed by the Gauhati University shall he deemed to have been prescribed by the Dibrugarh University till they are modified by the Act. By the proviso thereof, the Law Course shall be of two years' duration and shall be divided into Law (Previous) and Law (Final) and the duration of these shall be one year each with papers and marks as shown below:

(3.) IT is contended by the Petitioner that since the Rules and Regulations of the Gauhati University are applicable in this case, those of the Gauhati University that are pertinent to and applicable to two years' course alone should govern the Law Course of the Dibrugarh University. There is a two years' course in M.A. in the Gauhati University and Section 4 of the Ordinance of the Gauhati University relating to M.A., M. Sc, and M. Com. Examinations provides that the result of the successful candidates in the Previous Examinations shall be announced in a single pass list without divisions; the classification of the final result will be declared on the combined assessment of both the Previous and Final Examinations. According to the learned Counsel, under Section 4 of the Ordinance, the Petitioner should have been declared to have passed on the combined assessment of both the Previous and Final Law Examination as he has secured an aggregate of 52% of marks which is more than the minimum 45% for M.A. Second class pass in the Gauhati University.