(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We are not satisfied that any case has been made out for quashing annexure-s 4 and 6 to this application. The application is, therefore, being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
(2.) The petitioner appeared at the Master of Arts examination in Economics in 1985 from A.N. College, Patna. He was declared failed. He had obtained 12 marks in the 6th paper and the total was only 246 when the minimum marks for obtaining 2nd Class is 360 (there is no third Class). He was thus declared to have failed. In 1986, the petitioner again sat at the Master of Arts examination in economics. He appeared in 1st, 4th and 6th papers. Admit card was issued to him and he took the examination. It is not in controversy that he paid the necessary fees and he was issued an admit card. After the results were published, the petitioner's name did not appear along with the list of compartmental candidates. When he obtained the marks sheet, he was shown to have failed. The marks sheet in respect of 86 examination held in December, 1987, was issued on 16-1-1989. The petitioner approached this Court by the present application with the averments that the marks sheet was wrong and that he had not appeared in the subjects noted in the marks sheet. Hence, the present application under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing annexure-s 4 and 6 and for a declaration that he has passed the Master of Arts Examination.
(3.) Annexure-5 to this application shows that the petitioner wrote to the Head of the - department, Economics, Anugrah Narain College, Patna, wherein he had stated that he had appeared in the 1st, 4th and 6th papers in accordance with the T.R. Regulations. Alphabets T and R stand for Transitory Regulation. He prayed to the Head of department for clarifying that the petitioner had appeared only in 1st, 4th and 6th papers through T. R. in Economics and not in the 5th paper as mentioned in the cross list. It appears that in July, 1989, the petitioner sent lawyer's notice to the University for not declaring him to have passed the Master of Arts examination. In answer thereto the Deputy Registrar, of Magadh University, replied to J.P. Gupta, the petitioner's lawyer that the petitioner, in terms of University regulation, was not eligible to appear in M.A. examination, 1986, under provisions for reappearance in examination to improve class. The relevant sentence in annexure-6 reads as follows: