IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15642 of 2009 1. MD. SAQUIB ANSARI S/O MD. NAYIMUDDIN R/O MOHALLA- MAHUA TOLA, P.O.- SOHSARAI, P.S.- SOHSARAI AT BIHARSHARIF, DISTT.- NALANDA ….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI 3. THE REGISTRAR, STUDENT EVALUATION DIVISION, IGNOU, NEW DELHI 4. THE EXAMINATION CONTROLLER, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI 5. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI 6. THE PRINCIPAL, NALANDA COLLEGE, BIHAR SHARIF, DISTT.- NALANDA 7. THE CO-ORDINATOR, NALANDA COLLEGE BIHAR SHARIF, DISTT.- NALANDA 8. THE CO-ORDINATOR, PATNA MUSLIM SCIENCE COLLEGE, PATNA ….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 05 17.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Indira Gandhi National Open University (hereinafter described as I.G.N.O.U.). The petitioner is a student of the B.Sc Programme conducted by the University. The duration of the course is three years, extendable by a maximum period of eight years, consisting of theory and practical papers. Term end examinations are held in June and December. The students are required to be in touch with the study centre concerned in order to know the schedule and 2 participate in the exam accordingly. The petitioner was attached to the Nalanda Study Centre at Biharsharif, for appearing at the term end examination in the theory papers in June, 2007. The petitioner had not acquired the necessary credits in all the theory papers by June, 2007. In March, 2008 the petitioner claims to have converted the remaining theory papers in which the necessary credits had not been acquired into practical papers under the regulations. It is not in controversy that the examination in these converted practical papers were not held at the Nalanda Study Centre at Biharsharif on the scheduled dates. The ground was that the number of candidates available in the practical papers was less than ten. If that be so, surely the petitioner was not at fault. It was for the University to simultaneously notify at the Nalanda Study Centre at Biharsharif the rescheduled date and the rescheduled study centre where the practical examination of the students of the Nalanda Study Centre was to be held. The counter affidavit makes no such suggestion of this procedure having been followed by the University. The ground urged for cancellation 3 of the examination is also not tenable. On the contrary, the counter affidavit goes on to suggest that the petitioner was assigned subsequently the Patna Muslim Science College and in any event the petitioner may have appeared at any of the centres at the T.P.S. College, Patna, B.N. College, Patna under the regulations. But there is no pleading of the manner in which these study centres were published with their dates to be known to the petitioner to put this burden on the petitioner after he had been required to appear in the practical papers at the Patna Muslim Science College. Once the location was rescheduled by the University and informed to the petitioner, he was under no obligation to appear at any other centre than that notified to him. The imbroglio created may have been avoided if the University had been a little more careful on the date that the practical papers were cancelled at the Nalanda Study Centre at Biharsharif and to have rescheduled the date and published the same on that date itself or any subsequent scheduled date thereafter at Biharsharif itself, perhaps persons like the petitioner would have had no excuse to avoid their responsibility to appear on the rescheduled date and place. 4 It is not in controversy that in this manner by the time that the University informed the petitioner of the rescheduled location and date at the Patna Muslim Science College, two papers of practical were already over and the two left over papers in which the petitioner had to appear and acquire the necessary credit, he could not appear as the examination dates clashed. Only subsequently he completed the theory papers in which the credits remained due and has finally cleared these practical papers in March, 2009. In this background arises a claim for issue of the provisional certificate for completion of the course in June, 2007 which is sought to be given from June, 2009. In the nature of the controversy, this Court finds it difficult to hold that the petitioner is entitled to the provisional certificate of having completed the course in June, 2007. On his own showing he had not acquired the necessary credits till that date in the theory papers. Subsequently the theory papers in which the credits remained due were converted by him into practical in March, 2008. The question of grant of any provisional certificate prior to that simply does not arise. 5 This Court from the counter affidavit of the respondent University is satisfied that the University must also share a part of the blame in not notifying the dates and centres in a manner conducive to the candidate at the earliest opportunity which undoubtedly created a confused situation. The issue presently is not to find fault with the University or the petitioner, but to arrive at a determination of the relevant date in view of the factual foundation that there did occur some confusion with regard to the rescheduled centre and the date for the papers. This Court is satisfied on facts that the petitioner is certainly entitled to get the provisional certificate from prior to June, 2009. The matter is remanded to the University authorities to consider issues in the light of the aforesaid discussion for grant of provisional certificate to the petitioner from the relevant date in June or December, 2008 when the practical papers were held otherwise at other centres and the petitioner failed to appear at those centres for which this Court has already held that the petitioner cannot be entirely faulted with. Let such consideration be done and the 6 provisional certificate issued from the appropriate date within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is expected that the University shall be more careful in future and shall make adequate and timely disclosure by proper publication, inclusive on the Internet, so that the litigation of the present nature is avoided. The writ application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)