RAFAT BATUL Vs. KUMAR SHARAD BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions involve common points and hence, they were heard together and with consent of parties they are being finally disposed of at the stage of admission itself because of urgency of the matter.

(2.) CWJC No. 2583 of 2000 has been preferred by two students belonging to Mithila Minority Dental College, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga. They claim to be regular students of the said college of the session 1989 -93 and session 1991 -95 respectively. CWJC No. 6633 of 2000 has been preferred by four students of Darbhanga Dental College, Darbhanga belonging to various sessions. The commen prayer made in these writ applications is for a direction to the respondents, particularly to the respondent -LN Mithila University to hold the pending examinations for all parts of BDS course for which these petitioners claim to be eligible on account of regular studies in their respective colleges and also for publication/declaration of the pending results of various BDS examinations already held by the University and also of the examinations that may be held for the petitioners in future.

(3.) THE aforesaid facts submitted on behalf of the petitioners are not in dispute and in normal course there was no occasion or any semblance of legal justification for the respondent -University to withhold the pending results of various BDS examinations or not to hold further due examinations for the students of the two concerned colleges. Such a situation has admittedly arisen in view of a recent development concerning the concerned colleges as well as several similar other colleges. This particular development was initiation of a general vigilance enquiry by the State Government against all educational institutions affiliated to the respondent -University imparting technical education like BDS course, management course or B.Ed. course. After commencement of such vigilance enquiry some time in the beginning of the year 1999 the functioning of the University with regard to such colleges got almost paralysed. It is not in dispute and in fact, it is the stand of the University in these cases also that on account of the pending vigilance enquiry the results of various BDS examinations have been withheld and further examinations for such colleges have been postponed or are not being announced. It has to be decided in these cases as to whether pendency of vigilance enquiry or even lodging of a criminal case as has been done with regard to management of Darbhanga Dental College vide FIR dated 14.3.2000, Annexure -H to the counter affidavit of DCI, respondent no.6, in CWJC No. 6633/2000 can provide sufficient and lawful justification for the impugned action/inaction of the respondent -University.