KASHMIR KAUR Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who qualified the 10+2 Examination from the Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad of Patna (for short 'the Parishad') in July, 1987 and June, 1988 respectively were admitted to B.A. Examination to the Guru Nanak Dev University (for short 'the University'). Petitioner No. 1 passed her B.A. Part-I Examination in the year 1988. She appeared in B.A. Part-II Examination in the year 1989 and B.A. Part-III Examination in the year 1990. Petitioner No. 2 appeared in B.a. Part-I Examination in the year 1989. The University who conducted these examinations issued a letter on 25.1.1989 to the Principals of various affiliated colleges and its Teaching Departments that the certificate awarded by the Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad, Siripalour in 1980 and afterwards is not to be treated as a certificate awarded by a statutory body. In pursuance to this decision the university cancelled the results of the petitioners. With regard to petitioner No. 2 it has been additionally averred in the written statement that she had submitted the admission form to appear as a private candidate and not as a regular candidate. It has been averred that she had never been issued any roll numbers to appear in April, 1989 examination. Petitioner No. 2 has filed rejoinder to the written statement. A document at Annexure 'A' has been appended to show that in fact she had been allotted Roll No. 6877 and the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the Gazette notification issued by the University.

(2.) Mr. Navkiran Singh appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had been admitted in the year 1987 and 1988 respectively. The decision taken by the University in the year 1989 contained in Annexure P-3 could not be retrospectively applied to persons who had been admitted to the different courses prior to the issuance of the letter. He further submitted that such a course of action, if permitted, would cause extreme hardship and would be arbitrary. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, appearing for the University contended that the petitioners had qualified the 10+2 examination in the years 1987 and 1988 respectively. The University has not recognised the qualification at all and all persons who have qualified an examination from the Parishad after the year 1980 are considered ineligible for admission to any of the courses/examinations conducted by the University.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The sequence of events clearly shows that petitioner No. 1 was admitted to B.A. Part-I in the year 1987. She passed the examination held in the year 1988. She then appeared in B.a. Part-II examination in the year 1989 and B.A. Part-III examination in the year 1990. The University never objected to her admission. She was even permitted to take the three examinations. Her result for B.A. Part-I examination was duly declared by the University. Still, the University had chosen to cancel her result for the B.A. Part-II and Part-III examinations. It appears to be total arbitrary. A person who has been permitted to take an examination without any objection is dubbed as being ineligible for the subsequent examinations after she had actually taken the examination. The decision of the University cannot be justified either on academic considerations or in equity and law. It is absolutely arbitrary. Similarly, even petitioner No. 2 was permitted to take the B.A. Part-I examination in the year 1989. Withholding of her result and cancellation of her candidature on the basis of a letter subsequent to her admission is wholly unjustifiable.