IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12533 of 2010 CHANDAN KUMAR & ORS . Versus THE B.N.MANDAL UNIVERSITY & ORS . with CWJC No.13175 of 2010 MANISH KUMAR . Versus THE HON'BLE CHANCELLOR,BIHAR & ORS. with CWJC No.12550 of 2010 RAKESH RANJAN & ORS . Versus THE B.N.MANDAL UNIVERSITY & ORS . For the Petitioners: Pramod Rajpati, Adv. Arbind Kumar Anand, Adv. Shailendra Kumar, Adv. Rabi Bhushan Prasad-1, Adv. For the University : Hemendra Pd. Singh, Adv. Ramchandra Singh, Adv. For the Chancellor : Shivendra Kishor ----------- 2/ 16/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the B.N. Mandal University and for the Chancellor. The petitioners are students of the Millia Institute of Technology, Purnea in the four years B.Tech. Course for the sessions-‘2006-2010’ and ‘2007-2011’ respectively. In C.W.J.C. No.13175/10 and 12550/20 the petitioners have cleared the first, and second year of the course successfully. They appeared at the third year examination held in June, 2009. It is their case that the University did not publish the results in time and therefore they were permitted to attend classes in the fourth year and have also been permitted to appear in the - 2 - first and second term sessional examinations of the fourth year. Thereafter the results of their third year final examination have been published in June,2010. They are stated to have failed in more than three papers and are therefore not being permitted to appear at the fourth year final examination. In C.W.J.C. No.12533/10 the facts are identical except for the fact that the petitioners have passed the first and second year successfully and have been permitted to attend classes in the third year and appear at the sessional examination, but subsequently have been declared fail in more than three papers of the second year and therefore have been denied permission to appear in the third year final examination. Learned counsel for the University and the Chancellor do not deny the fact that the results of the final year examination of the previous year are required to be published prior to the commencement of the academic session for the next session. This is acknowledged not to have been done. The results have admittedly been published after three months of the commencement of the next academic session. The common submission is that the University did not allow them to take admission in the next academic year of the course. The admission has been granted by the college - 3 - concerned contrary to regulations in absence of the petitioners have cleared all the papers of the previous academic session. Academic standards are to be maintained by the University first in time. If it wishes to enforce academic discipline and standards, it is first for the University to set its own house in order. If a lapse is committed by the University in failing to publish results in due time, the student cannot be allowed to suffer. Once the University acknowledges not having published the results in time, obviously it could not expect the college to allow its students to wander around on the streets and leave class rooms empty till result of the previous academic session was not published. The University did not and could not have issued any directions to the concerned college not to commence the next academic session, to cover up its own lapses. If the examinations were not held in time, perhaps, it requires introspection and disciplinary proceedings by the University itself against its own staff before it seeks to visit the petitioners with the consequences of its own lapses. The University cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. If the University has itself violated the regulations in delayed publication of the results, it does not lie with the University to urge the - 4 - regulations as a defence to deny relief to the petitioners. This Court shall hold the University bound by the same standards by which it professes to act vis-à-vis the petitioners. The University is directed to permit the petitioners to appear at the final examination of the next academic session. It is further clarified till the petitioners do not clear all the papers of the previous academic session their result of the next academic session shall not be published. The provisions of the regulations with regard to the chances permissible for clearing papers of the previous academic session shall operate in its full force with all consequences as provided for in the regulations with regard to the petitioners. The writ applications are allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)