BILAL AHMAD WANI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE students of the degree course for Bachelor of Engineering, conducted by the University of Kashmir, approached this Court by filing three writ petitions seeking Mandamus directing the University to permit them to appear in the backlog papers of the 1st semester Examination alongwith the 7th semester Examination. Since it was represented to the writ petitioners -appellants by the University that Statute 15 of the University Statutes stands in their way to appear in the backlog papers of the 1st semester Examination alongwith the 7th semester Examination, the petitioners in the writ petitions sought a declaration that Statute 15 is invalid. In other words, as the petitioners proceeded, so was the response of the University, that Statute 15 stands in the way of a candidate pursuing the degree course for Bachelor of Engineering conducted by the University, to appear in the backlog papers of the 1st semester Examination alongwith the 7th semester Examination. The Court, therefore, proceeded on that basis and, accordingly, was called upon to find out whether the said Statute is valid or not. On the basis of the pleadings and arguments advanced, the Court found that there is no basis to challenge the legality of Statute 15 and, accordingly, declared the same to be a valid piece of Legislation. In consequence thereof, petitioners lost, for, as they proceeded on the basis and as was the response of the University, the Court felt that Statute 15 stood in the way of issuance of Mandamus. The writ petitions were, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioners thereupon filed three review petitions. In the review petitions, they contended that, in fact, Statute 15 does not stand in the way of the petitioners to appear in the backlog papers of the 1st semester alongwith the 7th semester Examination. The Court felt that since an interpretation has been given to Statute 15 by it while passing the principal orders on the writ petitions, it cannot change its view on such interpretation in review applications, and the same can only be made by the appellate forum. The Court, accordingly, dismissed the review petitions.

(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the writ petitioners in all the said three writ petitions have preferred a joint single appeal against the three principal orders passed in three writ petitions as well as against three review orders passed on three review petitions.

(3.) THE respondent University has contended that such an appeal is not maintainable. To that, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the three principal orders and the three review orders are verbatim same and similar, including commas and full stops. The only difference is the change in the cause title of those orders. He submitted that in such situation, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the appellants, who were seeking to pursue a common cause against one single respondent, clubbed the appeals into one. Even assuming such an appeal is not maintainable, but it cannot be said that the appeal against one principal order passed in one writ petition and one review order passed in connection with the said writ petition is not maintainable. We, therefore, have jurisdiction to pronounce upon the issues raised in the appeal, at least, in connection with one of the writ petitions. The nature of issues is such that if we decide the same, the same would tantamount to declaration of the obligations of the University and, accordingly, everybody similarly situated to the appellant, whose appeal we are entitled to decide, will also be benefited thereby. Accordingly, we have decided not to be bogged down with the question whether the present appeal in respect of three principal orders and three review orders is maintainable or not.