SANJAYKUMARSHUKLA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the petitioners, who are 26 in number, for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents being officers and authorities of Patna University to withhold the publication of marks-sheets for the post-Graduate Examination of Labour and Social Welfare for the Session 1988-90, conducted by the said University in June, 1992 and further direction to them to re-evaluate all the answer books of all the papers in accordance with the provisions of the Patna University Act, 1976 (in short the 'Act' only) and publish the result afresh.

(2.) According to the petitioners, they studied the subject to Labour and Social Welfare in the Session 1988-90 as regular students of Patna University and had appeared at the Master Degree Examination of the University, which was held in June, 1993. Since the Session in question was running iate, therefore, the Examination Board of the University in its meeting held on 12.9.1992 resolved to authorise the Vice-Chancellor to get the answer books of the Master Degree Examination in question evaluated at one or more places to publish the result in time in order to regularise the session as a transitional measure. An extract of the proceeding has been filed as Annexure 'A' to the counter affidavit. Accordingly, the Vice- Chancellor got the answer books evaluated centrally at Banaras Hindu University and Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi by the examiner, who are lecturers and readers in the Department of Commerce and Management, B.H.U. and the Department of Social Work, Kashi Vidyapeeth The list of the examiners, who have examined the different papers, has been filed as Annexure 'B' to the counter affidavit. Therefore, the results were published on 27-2-1993 after the same were cleared by the Board of Moderators as well as the Deen of the Faculty of Social Science of the University, who was also the Head of the Department of Labour and Secial Welfare.

(3.) The evaluation of the answer books and the publication of the result has been challenged primarily on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 29 (2) of the Act, inasmuch as, according to the petitioners, (faint) could have got the answer books (evaluated) only from the examiners selected out of the panel recommended by the Examination Board. They have also pleaded that the Vice-Chancellor has pot the answer books examined and evaluated by the teachers of Commerce Department of Banaras Hindu University, who were not competent to do the same for the subject in question.