SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI ANANT PRASAD SINGH Vs. B.N.MANDAI UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had appeared for M.A. examination in the B.N. Mandal, University (hereinafter referred to as the University) for the Sessions 1993/95 and passed. He thereafter was permitted to sit for improvement of his result of the Master of Art and as such sat in the examination in the year 1997. As per petitioner 'sinformation not only he has passed but has done better than in the previous attempt. When it came to publishing result University stopped. It has been pointed out by the University before this Court that regulation do not permit sitting for examination to improve results in any other Session but the next immediate Session. The petitioner having sat not in the next immediate Session but the Session thereafter his sitting for examination for improvement of his result itself was wrong and illegal. If sitting in examination was wrong and illegal marks cannot be declared or given to the petitioner.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. What surprises to this Court is that when it came to permitting the petitioner to sit for examination for improvement of his result everyone conveniently forgot the University regulation, now to say that the petitioner sat for examination contrary to statute. In my view, it cannot be accepted When petitioner filled up his Forms for sitting in the examination, it was for the University either to accept the Form or reject it. If regulations did not permit then his very application should have been rejected, which regrettably was not rejected. Now, petitioner is seeking declaration of his result, he has being told that regulation did not permit him to sit in examination and as such even though he has sat in examination and improved his result, result cannot be declared. This is purely a technical objection and 1 can say in this regard to refer the judgment in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 152, wherein in paragraph 11 their Lordships have held thus: - ".....The answer to this in the words of Lord Denning "Now I know that a public authority cannot be estopped from doing its public duty, but I do think it can be estopped from relying on a technicality and this is a teachnicality".

(3.) FRANCIS Bennion in his "Statutory Interpretation". 1984 edition, says at page 683: - "Unnecessary technicality: Modern Courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfillment of the purposes of the legislation".