BIRI SINGH Vs. H.P.UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed seeking for the issue of a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to the Respondents to issue the consolidated detailed marks card to the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims to have done his graduation in the year 1992 from the Government Degree College, Bilaspur. Thereafter, he was said to have got admission to the Himachal Pradesh University and did his Master Degree in Geography in the year 1994. Since the Petitioner could not secure first Division he applied for improvement of division in Urban Geography Course-XIII. In the first improvement attempted he could not secure marks to his expectation. The same was the fate in the second improvement attempted and it appears that he has even gone down. Thereafter, the Petitioner appeared once again for the third time for improvement of division in the same subject in December 1997 and was said to have obtained 56 marks. When the Petitioner who has been issued with the detailed marks card for the said examination in December 1997 applied for the issuance of a consolidated marks card for M.A. Geography, the authorities of the Respondent-University came to know that since the Petitioner has already availed two chances in that very course earlier and could not have availed a third chance, his request could not be complied with and he was called upon to surrender detailed marks card issued to him. Hence, the above writ petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition contended that the Petitioner having been allowed to take the improvement examination for the third time and having been issued the marks card in respect of the same could not be denied the consolidated marks card of M.A. Geography and that the Respondents-authorities are estopped from denying the benefits secured by undertaking the improvement examination in the third attempt. It is also stated that the Petitioner has not concealed any fact from the authorities and therefore, he could not be penalised for the "wrongs committed by the Respondents."

(3.) The learned Counsel in support of this claim sought to place reliance upon three decisions of the apex Court reported in Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra, 1976 AIR(SC) 376; Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and Anr., 1986 AIR(SC) 1448 and Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and Ors., 1989 AIR(SC) 823.