RATTANJIT KAUR Vs. H.P.UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent -University and gone through the record. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that the respondent -University has not declared her result of First, Third and Fourth Semesters of M.A. Sociology. It is not in dispute that she appeared in First Semester in June, 1990 and in one course of First Semester, Second Semester and Third Semester in July, 1991, and in Fourth Semester in February, 1992, a postponed examination, which was due to be held in November, 1991. According to her, she had appeared as a regular candidate after her admission forms for these examinations were duly accepted and roll numbers were issued to her and at no stage any objection was raised on behalf of the University that she was not I eligible to appear in those examinations.

(2.) On the other hand, the stand of the respondent -University in their reply affidavit is that the examination held in July, 191 was for Second. Semester and Fourth Semester as regular candidates and the petitioner was not [eligible to appear in one course of first Semester and in third Semester in these examinations as regular candidate. Similarly, the examination due to be held in November, 1991 but postponed to February, 1992 was for First Semester and Third Semester as regular candidates and the petitioner was not eligible to appear in Fourth Semester as regular candidate. Therefore, her result for First and Third Semesters examination held in July, 1991 was notified as cancelled as per Notification Annexure R -7. For their stand the respondent -University is relying upon their Notifications dated 19th March, 1990,23rd April, 1991 and 20th September, 1991, Annexure R -l to R -3, whereby the examination to be held in June 1990, July, 1991 and November, 1991 were notified respectively. It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondent -University that acceding to the unreasonable demand of the petitioner will mean violation of the provisions of Ordinance 8.40 of the First Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University, which is: - "A candidate is required to pass in all the courses in each semester. Provided that - (a) A candidate who appears in the examination and fails to obtain pass marks in any course in the first semester may be permitted to proceed to the second semester, but he shall not be permitted to proceed from second semester to the third semester without appearing in -the examination. (b) at the time of third semester examination the candidate may appear in the course in which he may have failed to obtain pass marks in the first semester and also in all the courses prescribed for the third semester. But he shall not be permitted to proceed from the third to the fourth semester without appearing in the examination. (c) at the time of the fourth semester examination the candidate may appear in the courses in which he may have failed to obtain pass marks in the second semester and also in all the courses prescribed for fourth semester. The Vice -Chancellor may, however, permit a candidate who is other - j wise eligible to appear at the examination, to proceed from one semester to another without appearing at the examination if to the satisfaction of the Vice Chancellor the candidate was prevented from appearing in the examination on account of serious illness, or other unforseen circum -stances beyond his tier control provided that intimation to the effect, accompanied by documentary proof there of, is communicated to the University within a week of the expiry of the concerned examination."

(3.) The respondent -University has taken a further stand that the petitioner had appeared as a stray candidate and not as a regular candidate having been issued Roll numbers in the regular courses permitting her to appear in the examinations. But despite our specific directions learned counsel appearing for the respondent - University has shown his inability to produce the record to show that the petitioner appeared as a stray candidate, therefore, we are constrained to take an adverse inference against the respondent - University and hold that it had permitted the petitioner to appear as regular candidate in First, Third and Fourth Semesters of M.A. Sociology after accepting her admission forms and examination fee. It is correct that as per the notification Annexure R -l to R -3 the petitioner could not appear in one paper of First Semester and in Third Semester in July, 1991 and in Fourth Semester in November, 1991, which was postponed to February, 1992 as regular candidate but learned counsel appearing for the respondent -University has not been able to point out any provision of law to show that these notifications have statutory force and declaration of the result of the petitioner for these examinations will amount to violation of those provisions of law.