RAM UGRAH SINGH Vs. BENARES HINDU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, Ram Ugrah Singh, is a graduate of the Benares Hindu University. In the month of July, 1924, he presented himself at an examination held under the authority of the said University, described as the "Previous LL. B. Examination." The results were publish-on the 11 of August, 1924, and the plaintiff's name did not appear in the list of candidates who had passed the examination. On the 30th of August, 1924 the plaintiff addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the Benares Hindu University a petition (Exhibit 5), in which he protested that, under the regulations of the University in force at the time when he sat for the examination and which continued in force until after the results of the said examination had been published, he (the petitioner) had in fact passed the examination in the third class. He, therefore, requested the Vice-Chancellor to re-consider the whale situation, to adjudge the petitioner to have passed the Previous LL. B. Examination and to promote him to the Final LL. B. class, alleging these things to be his right by virtue of the declarations and pronouncements of the University. The answer returned was to the effect that the matter was under consideration. On the 8 of September, 1924 Ram Ugrah Singh instituted the present suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares. The defendant was the Benares Hindu University. The reliefs sought were by way of declaration and of injunction. The declaration sought was to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to have been declared as passed in the Previous Law Examination of the Benares Hindu University held in July, 1924 and promoted to the Final LL. B. class. The relief sought by way of injunction was that the defendant-University be compelled to pass and promote the plaintiff to the Final LL. B. class. There was an alternative prayer that, if for any reason the plaintiff be held disentitled to the other reliefs claimed, he should be given a decree for Rs. 5,250 by way of damages. The plaint was not rejected by the trial Court on the ground that on the face of it, it disclosed no cause of action; but summons having been issued to the Benares Hindu University through its Vice-Chancellor, the case was set down for settlement of issues; and after one adjournment, granted for the convenience of the defendant, the trial Court, on the 9 of October, 1924, settled eight issues which it proposed to try. At this stage this Court intervened, and the suit was transferred from the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Benares to that of this Court and directed to be tried as an original suit in this Court.

(2.) As soon as the case came up before me for hearing, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, appearing for the defendant, pointed out; that certain pleas in the written statement were of the nature known in English law as "demurrer," and went to the question whether this Court, or any other Court of civil jurisdiction in this province, could entertain a plaint of the nature now before me. I have recorded a memorandum of the proceedings which took place before me yesterday, which were largely directed to ascertaining from the learned Counsel representing both parties whether they were at isssue upon any definite question of fact and what wag the precise meaning and effect of the pleadings entered by the respective parties. Having done this, I passed an order superseding altogether the issues fixed by the Subordinate Judge of Benares, and in their place I fixed the three following issues: 1. On the facts alleged and the pleadings of the parties, has the plaintiff any cause of action? 2. In the event of an affirmative finding on issue No. 1, to what relief is the plaintiff entitled, either, (i) by way of declaration, or (ii) by way of mandatory injunction, or (iii) by way of a decree for damages?

(3.) If it be held that the plaintiff is entitled to relief by way of a decree for damages, then at what sum should the said damages be fixed? 3. I then intimated my intention of hearing both parties on the first two issues before I proceeded to consider the third. No oral evidence has been taken on either side, the matter being treated by both parties as one falling within the scope of Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C., that is to say, as being a case in which issues of law were raised which went to the root of the whole matter and the determination of which in a certain sense might make it unnecessary for the Court to take oral evidence, or to proceed to the determination of any issue of fact. In the course of argument, however, certain documents were put in, which I have admitted in evidence, and I must, therefore, take it that evidence has been offered in respect of the two preliminary issues of law. Whether or not this course was strictly regular, it is certain that no injustice has been done to the plaintiff in the matter, as the documents before me are documents produced at his instance. A printed booklet, described as the "Prospectus of Studies" issued by the Benares Hindu University for the examinations of 1923, and containing the regulations of the University, was put in and admitted by both sides to be an authoritative publication. This book or pamphlet was already on the record when the case came before this Court, and I have now marked it as Exhibit 6. The other exhibits, to which I need not necessarily refer in numerical order, are the following: Exhibit 5 is the petition addressed by the plaintiff, Ram Ugrah Singh, to the Vice-Chancellor of the Benares Hindu University, dated August 30, 1924, and Exhibit 6 is the reply to the said petition. Exhibit 4 is a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the Senate of the Benares Hindu University held on the 18 of August, 1924. Exhibit 1 is a copy of what are described as the minutes of an emergency meeting of the Syndicate of the same University, held on the 16 of November, 1923. Exhibit 2 is a letter signed by the Registrar of the Benares Hindu University, specifying the papers taken by the plaintiff in the course of the Previous LL. B. Examination of 1924, with a statement of the maximum marks allowed for each paper and of the marks awarded in each to the plaintiff. Exhibit 3 is a copy of a letter, addressed by the Registrar of the Benares Hindu University to the Secretary to Government of the United Provinces, Education Department, dated the 8 of September, 1924. The authenticity and admissibility in evidence of these exhibits has been conceded on both sides. It will be noticed that I have admitted copies to be put in evidence in certain cases, and I have done so without concerning myself to enquire too curiously into the question whether copies were technically admissible in evidence. The documents in question were called for by the plaintiff from the defendant, and the copies produced by the latter have been accepted by consent of both parties as the most convenient method of placing upon the record the evidence which the plaintiff desired to have there.