IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17666 of 2008 RANJANA GUPTA Versus THE PATNA UNIVERSITY & ORS For the Petitioner : Manish Kumar, Adv. For the University : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv. ----------- 2/ 19/01/2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent university. The petitioner in this application seeks the relief for publication of the result of her part-3 examination of B.Sc. (Computer Applications). The petitioner was admitted to the course for the session- „2003-06‟. In the 1st year examination in the year-2004 she failed in only the subsidiary papers. In the second year examination in the year-2005 she cleared the subsidiary papers of the 1st year, but failed in the mathematics paper of the 2nd year. In the 3rd year examination she failed again in the mathematics paper of the 2nd year and E.D.P. of 3rd year. In 2007 the petitioner appeared in the carry over mathematics paper of the 2nd year and the E.D.P. paper of the third year but failed in the mathematics paper and the E.D.P. paper again. According to the University, in the year-2008 the petitioner could have appeared for the mathematics paper again along with all subjects of 3rd year since failure of E.D.P. paper in 2 the 3rd year did not permit carry over of the 3rd year course twice. The fact of the matter remains that the petitioner has now cleared all her papers of all the three years. She was permitted by the university authorities themselves to appear and re-appear. There are no allegations of any unfair practices in the examination on her part, but her results have been achieved by her on merit. It were the university authorities who, if they thought that the regulations debarred her from appearing the second time in the failed paper of the 3rd year, not to permit her to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976 S.C. 376 (Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra). In the case relied on by the petitioner the Supreme Court at the relevant extract of paragraph-6 of the judgement held as follows:- “…….. It is, therefore, manifest that once the appellant was allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the applicant permission to appear…….” Discussing the matter further in the 3 relevant extract of paragraph-7 of the judgement it was held as follows:- “It appears from the averments made in the counter-affidavit that according to the procedure prevalent in the College the admission forms are forwarded by the Head of the Department in December preceding the year when the Examination is held. In the instant case the admission form of the appellant must have been forwarded in December 1971 whereas the examination was to take place in April/May 1972. It is obvious that during this period of four to five months it was the duty of the University authorities to scrutinize the form in order to find out whether it was in order. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the University to see that the form complied with all the requirements of law. If neither the Head of the Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinize the admission form, then the question of the appellant committing a fraud did not arise. It is well settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved. It was neither a case of suggestion falsi, or suppression veri. The appellant never wrote to the University authorities that he had attended the prescribed number of lectures. There was ample time and opportunity for the University authorities to have found out the defect. In these circumstances, therefore, if the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the appellant to appear in Part-1 Examination in April 1972, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant……” In the facts of the present case also, it were the University Authorities who should have intervened 4 to prevent the petitioner from appearing in the 3rd year examination on the second occasion in single subject if regulations did not permit. It is they who have permitted the petitioner to do so without due diligence. This Court has already held that there are no allegations against the petitioner of any unfair means in the examination, but that she has cleared the papers by dint of labour. Applying the analogy of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the University is obliged to publish the 3rd year results of the B.Sc. (Computer Applications) course of the petitioner. Let such result of the petitioner be published and made available to the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)