IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.269 of 2009 RISHIKESH RANJAN . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3. 16.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The present writ application reflects a very sorry state of affairs, of the manner in which the respondent Maghad University is functioning. Not only with regard to its administrative capability but also the casualness of approach in complete disregard to the careers of those who have studied in the institution. The University is a temple of learning where a student goes to enhance his career prospects. The University appears unconcerned with the career prospects of the students. The petitioner was a student of the respondent University and completed his B.Sc. (Engineering) course from the respondent University in the academic session 1996- 2000. The results were published in June-July, 2002, when he was shown to have passed the examination in 1st class with distinction. He was issued a mark sheet on 25.10.2002 by the Magadh University showing having obtained 2562 marks out of 3600. He was then issued a provisional certificate on 26.10.2002 showing that he had passed the course in 1st class with distinction. He was issued the College 2 Leaving Certificate by the Maulana Azad Institute of Engineering & Technology, Neora, Patna under the Maghad University on 18.3.2004 showing him to have passed in 1st class with distinction. He pursued his career thereafter and came to be appointed as Section Engineer in Indian Railways. His travails started when he applied for his original certificate by depositing the necessary fee on 27.7.2007. When he was not supplied the same, he came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14025 of 2007. This Court on 19.2.2008 disposed off the writ petition with the following observation :- “Learned Senior Counsel Shri Yugal Kishore appearing on behalf of the University submits that he has already received instruction from the Controller of Examination and has instruction to submit that the certificate of the petitioner shall be made available to the College of the petitioner by the end of March 2008 and that the petitioner can very well collect it from there. The application is disposed off on the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University.” In the present proceedings, the counsel for the University could not have and rightly has not contested the stand of the University as noticed aforesaid in the previous proceeding. This Court is satisfied and holds that the University officials consciously, knowingly and after full verification took the aforesaid stand before the Court to issue the certificate to the petitioner. The litigation that they have generated 3 subsequently is indeed very unfortunate and unbecoming of the University. Notwithstanding the order on the writ petition when the original certificate still remained elusive, the petitioner came to this Court in M.J.C. No. 955 of 2008. On 17.9.2008, this Court in the contempt matter noticed the alleged stand of the University with regard to interpolation in the tabulation register creating suspicion on the marks of the petitioner in the subject of Hydraulic Structure. While the University contended fraud, this Court observed as follows at Paragraph- 1 of the order :- “However, the remarks column appearing on the right hand side of Annexure- A does not show any kind of cutting or mark of erasion.” It, therefore, directed as follows:- “For this purpose, the University must locate the primary evidence of marks obtained by candidates including the petitioner before taking a final stand before this Court. If the primary materials are not available, it may not be possible for this Court to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the University.” (emphasize mine) The contempt matter ultimately came to be disposed on 21.10.2008 when this Court held that there were signs of interpolation in the tabulation register and that the petitioner was a beneficiary. In view of the limited jurisdiction of the contempt Court the proceedings were dropped. The petitioner is again before this Court in this 4 freshly constituted writ application. On the earlier occasion in C.W.J.C. No. 14025 of 2007 the University did not allege any fraud but made a conscious statement naturally after examination of records speaking through its counsel that the Controller of Examination had informed from the records that the petitioner can collect his original certificates. If there was any fraud as alleged, it was for the University to point it out at this stage itself. Moreover, if there was a fraud committed by anybody in the University, it was for the University to take appropriate action and even have a First Information Report instituted not only against the alleged beneficiary but also the officials of the University who may have dealt with the Tabulation Register at any time and from whose hands it may have passed. Learned counsel for the University very fairly acknowledges that the University has done no such thing and has not considered the matter serious enough for institution of an F.I.R. till date. Counsel for the University has very strongly contended fraud. However, from the order of this Court dated 17.9.2008 quoted above in the first extract, there is obviously a contradiction with the subsequent order dated 21.10.2008 in the contempt proceeding. While the first order opines that their does not appear to be cutting mark or erasion, the subsequent order states that it “ has scratched out by an 5 eraser”. Moreover, from the order dated 21.10.2008 of this Court, it does not appear that it is a case of an individual tampering of the tabulation register of the petitioner alone leading to an individual benefit to him , so as to justify any alleged fraud on his part. Corrections are general with regard to certain others, one of whose Roll No. 417 is alleged specifically in Paragraph 27 of the writ application to have been issued his original certificate while the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination. This is not denied by the University in its counter affidavit. The tabulation register has been placed on record as Annexure-A to the show cause filed on behalf of the University in the contempt matter as Annexure-6 to the writ application. The manner in which the University functions is more than amply demonstrated from it. Documents as important as tabulation register in its original contents contains manifold corrections. This Court is constrained to observe that it is the University which is subjecting its students to harassment by its own administrative incapability when it cannot even prepare a tabulation register properly and which is part of permanent records. This Court on 17.9.2008 in the second extract of 6 the order quoted above had given specific directions to examine the primary evidence of the marks obtained by the candidates including the petitioner before taking a final stand. This Court on 17.9.2008 in the second extract of the order quoted above has given specific direction to take primary evidence for deciding the marks obtained by the candidates including the petitioner before taking a final stand and that if primary evidence is not produced it would be difficult for this Court to accept the stand of the University ( alleging fraud). The University in its counter affidavit at Paragraph-10 explicitly in no uncertain terms admits that it has no primary evidence/ answer sheet available as it does not preserve the same after three years. The University then goes on to cast aspersion upon the petitioner in Paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit of his allegedly having obtained manipulated mark sheet but does not deny the genuineness of the mark sheet as issued from the University and does not choose to lodge an F.I.R. against those who issued the alleged manipulated mark sheet from its office. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly points out from the bottom of the tabulation register the noting “ results as moderated and entered for publication” duly signed by the officials of the University. In the facts and circumstances of the present 7 case, this Court is more than satisfied of the complete lack of bona fide of the University. This Court is far from satisfied on merits of any allegation of fraud against the petitioner and which is reinforced by the own conduct of the University itself. The petitioner has been dragged unnecessarily to this Court on three occasions. His employment is in jeopardy because of the callousness of the University authorities. Perhaps this is not the concern of the University official who sit safe in their respective assignments. The University is directed to hand over the original certificate of the petitioner to him within a maximum period of two weeks. The writ application is allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited in the Patna High Court, Council for Legal Aid and Advice. The costs shall be recovered from the salary of the Controller of Examination on whom instruction the order in C.W.J.C. No. 14025 of 2007 came to be passed and from the legal incharge who has sworn the counter affidavit in the present proceedings. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)