LAWS(PAT)-1980-8-13

SUBHASH PANDEY Vs. CHANCELLOR MAGADH UNIVERSITY

Decided On August 21, 1980
SUBHASH PANDEY Appellant
V/S
CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Consittution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the orders contained in annexure '5' and also to issue writ of mandamus to direct respondents for permitting the petitioners to continue their internship and to allow them to draw their salary and emoluments, which they might be entitled to. Short facts of the case are thus :

(2.) The petitioners appeared at the final M. B. B. S. examination of 78 (December) of Magadh University. The result of the examination was published on 12th June, 1969. Both the petitioners were declared fail at the examination. However, since some errors were detected in the publication of the results, the Academic Council of the university directed the Examination Board to revise the results in accordance with the guidelines as given in the Transitory Regulation passed by the Academic Council on 23rd June, 1979 for the moderation of the results of the M. B. B. S. Examination. This Transitory Regulation has been filed here along with the application (vide annexure '6'). In this revised moderation of the results, both the petitioners were declared to have passed the aforesaid examination on 22nd June, 1979 (vide annexure '1') Sometime later, the university felt that the moderation rule made under the Transitory Regulation was wrongly applied to the case of these two petitioners and they ought not to have been declared as successful with the result the university cancelled the results of passing the examination. The order of cancellation is contained in annexure '2' of the application.

(3.) The petitioners then represented to the Chancellor of the University, but finally the impugned order of cancellation of the earlier results were reaffirmed by the Vice Chancellor by order dated 14th April, 1980 (annexure'5'). The petitioners have now sought to challenge the validity of the two orders contained in annexures '2' and '5' and have, therefore, prayed for quashing of annexure '.5'.