SHIV SHANKAR Vs. VINOBA BHAVE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Shiv Shankar against the judgment and order dated 5.5.3008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6854 of 2007 by which the writ petition, although was disposed of with certain direction, the effect of the impugned order is clearly adverse and prejudicial to the petitioner's case for which he had moved the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By order dated 17.12.2009, we had directed the appellant to file a representation before the University but the same having not been disposed of by the University, we thought it just and appropriate to hear the matter finally and thus the Counsel for the parties were heard.

(2.) A slight enumeration of the facts giving rise to this appeal is essential in order to explain the controversy which indicate that the appellant-Shiv Shankar was initially admitted as a student of B.Sc. (Hons) for the Sessions 1990-93 in Bokaro Steel City College, which was initially affiliated with the Ranchi University at the relevant time. After completion of one year of the B.Sc. Part-I course, the petitioner-appellant herein appeared in B.Sc. Part-I examination in the year 1992 but was declared fail by the Ranchi University. Thereafter, he re-appeared in the B.Sc. Part-I examination in the year 1993 but this time again he was declared fail. However, as per the University Regulation, he was allowed to attend classes of B.Sc. Part-II also since he had already completed his classes for B.S. Part-I, although he could not clear the B.Sc. Part-I examination. During the intervening period i.e. in the year 1992, the University of Ranchi was bifurcated and the Bokaro Steel City College was now under the affiliation of Vinoba Bhave University. Hazaribagh. The petitioner thereafter became eligible for re-appearing in the B.Sc. part-I as also Part-II examination in the year 1993 but the petitioner-appellant did not appear in B.Sc. part-I and II in this year and prepared himself for next year to take these examinations i.e. in the year 1994. However, as the College and the University had permitted him to attend classes of B.Sc. Part-III also in the year 1994 and the petitioner-appellant appeared for B.Sc. part-I examination for the third time in January, 1994 and his result was also declared for B.Sc. part-I on 10.6.1994 and in the meantime the petitioner had already attended the classes for B.Sc. Part-II, he was permitted to appear in B.Sc. Part-II examination in May, 1994, for which his result was declared on 10.8.1994 and finally he appeared in Part-III examination in September, 1994 for which his result was declared on 9.12.1994.

(3.) A period of 13 years had elapsed by efflux of time since the petitioner-appellant had already passed the LL.B and thereafter sought a licence to be enrolled as an Advocate in the Bihar State Bar Council. On account of denial of the issuance of B.Sc. degree to the petitioner-appellant, he was compelled to file a writ petition which he did before the High Court of Jharkhand and the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment and order dated 5.5.2008 was pleased to dispose of the writ petition holding therein that the petitioner-appellant herein would not have been permitted to appear in B.Sc. Part II and III examinations without clearing B.Sc. part-I examination way back in the year 1994. The learned Single Judge clearly observed that the result of the petitioner's B.Sc. part -I examination was declared in June,1994 and before declaration of his result, he appeared in B.Sc. Part-II in May, 1994 and hence he was not eligible for appearing in B.Sc. part-II before clearing Part-I and thereafter also appeared in Part-III before declaration of result of B.Sc. part-II and, therefore, the University was justified in declaring that he was not eligible for B.Sc. degree. The learned Single Judge however was pleased to allow him to clear Part-II and III examinations of B.Sc. by re-appearing in the examination. The petitioner under compulsion had also agreed to reappear in B.Sc. Part-II and III examination but was still aggrieved that although he had cleared all the three examinations way back in the year 1994, the University was permitted to raise objection about clearance of his B.Sc. examination after 13 years of his passing out the B.Sc. course after which he had also cleared three years of LL.B course. He, therefore, has preferred this appeal, which we have heard.