IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.955 of 2008 RISHIKESH RANJAN SON OF KARTIK PRASAD RESIDENT OF SITA KUND KALAYAN CHAK P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- MUNGER --------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 3. Vice-Chancellor of Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 4. Registrar of Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 5. Controller of Examination Board, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. ----------- 6 21.10.2008 This contempt application has been filed for initiating a contempt proceeding against the members of the opposite parties for violation of order dated 19.2.2008. In the connected writ petition, the petitioner had made a prayer that he may be issued degree from the University that he had passed the B.Sc. (Engineering) examination in March, 2002.Being aggrieved by the fact that the University was not issuing the degree, the petitioner moved this Court in a writ jurisdiction. While hearing the contempt application, the University filed a show cause stating therein that the petitioner had played fraud by managing the results of paper on Hydraulic Structure for which the examination was held. The Court has directed the University to examine the primary evidence to show that the results were tampered with. 2 Mr. Yugal Kishore appearing on behalf of the University has produced the tabulation register which is kept in duplicate from which it appears that marks of Roll No. 417, 421 and 424 have been tampered with in the subject of Hydraulic Structure. There is clear sign of interpolation. The column where total marks were entered has scratched out by an eraser and replaced by higher marks, which had been interpolated in the column showing the marks. Similarly the column which is the marks regarding ‘Class’ obtained by the students has been tampered with. At the bottom of the tabulation register there is tampering with respect to the number of students who had obtained First Division marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tabulation register is not the primary evidence and the Court ought to call for the answer papers to show the original marks of the petitioners. In view of the fact that there is such obvious tampering with the tabulation register showing that the students have obtained first class marks, there is sufficient 3 evidence to show that the tampering was for the benefit of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred two judgments, one reported in 2008(1) P.L.J.R. 662 to submit that the University should issue the mark sheets. The facts of the case in question is that the results and the mark sheets of the students were issued by the University and the students succeeded in the examination but eventually they were not provided with the certificates on the ground that the college was not affiliated to the University. Under those circumstances, the Court has held that the mark sheet ought to have been provided to the students. Another case referred to is reported in 2004 (1) P.L.J.R. 260 in the case of Bhawanand Jha Vs. B.N. Mandal University & ors. The facts are some what similar to the facts of the earlier case relied upon. The petitioners had passed the B.A. (Hons.) examination in 1988-91 and mark sheets were issued in the year 1994. The reason for withholding the degree was that the petitioners had not cleared the Part I examination although they had appeared 4 for the Part III examination. This Court relying in the case of Sri Krishna Vs. Kurukshetra University reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 376 held that the students were entitled to be issued the Degree in respect of the B.A. (Hons.) examination on payment of cost to the University. In all the cases referred to by the counsel for the petitioner, the question of fraud did not come into play. In all the cases there was some illegality committed by the University or college in question which led to a situation in which the students of those cases had to suffer because of the acts of the University. In the present case when the question of fraud has surfaced, this Court cannot hold that the University is liable for contempt, for not issuing the Degrees to the students. This contempt application is thus disposed of. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)