IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19415 of 2011 1. Harnedra Kumar Singh S/O Shri Ram Lal Singh Resident Of Village-Madipur Khurd, P.S. Manjhi, District- Saran. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Higher Education, Bihar, Patna. 2. Jai Prakash University Through Its Registrar, Saran At Chapra. 3. The Vice Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. 4. The Controller Of Examination, Jai Prakash University, Saran At Chapra. 5. The Principal, Rajendra College, Chapra. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Md. Nadim Seraj & Satish Kumar Sinha For the University :- Mr. Shivenra Kishore. For the State :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, A.C. to S.C.X ---------- 2 01/12/2011 Petitioner has pursued his studies in B.Sc. Zoology (Hons.) for three years. He sat for the examination every year. Even results were declared but all of a sudden by a decision taken by the Controller of Examination contained in annexre-7 dated 4.2.2005 the results so declared were cancelled including the marks sheet issued to the petitioner. Petitioner knocked at the door of Jai Prakash University authorities; especially in the circumstances that he failed to pass in Hindi paper in the very first year because he did not get the minimum - 2 - qualifying marks of 33. The marks awarded to the petitioner were 32 only. Yet another paper where the petitioner did not fair well was Botany, which paper the petitioner states he had cleared subsequently. Obviously, on a wrong legal advise petitioner was led to the doors of the Consumer Forum to get a direction upon the University authorities to either grant him one grace mark in Hindi paper or permit him to sit in the examination afresh as well as to restore the marks sheet and the results declared in his favour earlier by the University by declaring the decision of the Controller of Examination contained in annexure-7 to be bad. The District Consumer Forum did no wrong by rejecting the claim of the petitioner for lack of jurisdiction to decide such disputes. Petitioner came before the High Court. The High Court directed the University authorities to take a decision at their level on this score. Annexure-9 is the decision in relation to the petitioner. His case has been dealt in paragraph 4 of the said decision and the present writ relates to such rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that - 3 - since there is no regulation in place, therefore, the Academic Council decided not to grant him one grace mark and they have decided to sticks with the original decision of not issuing any marks sheet or certificate of success for the course in question to the petitioner. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have taken an excessively harsh view of the whole matter. It is because of their omission or lack of adjudication at the relevant time when the petitioner was still continuing his studies or was permitted to continue his studies for three years that the petitioner has been left in the lurch without any valid degree or recognition for all the time he spent in the University pursuing his course. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, presses into service ratio of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sri Krishan Vs. Kurukshetra University reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C., 376. If the circumstances under which the Hon’ble Apex Court reached out in favour of the said student after the University authorities had permitted him to pursue his education as well as to appear in Part III - 4 - examination which was accepted as a kind of acceptance on behalf of the University as their having acquiesced to such a conduct, similar situation prevails in the case of the present petitioner. The decision contained in annexure-7 came to be taken many a years after completion of his studies. The University authorities all along permitted him to be promoted to the next higher class, sit in the examination and even declared his results. In that view of the matter the vehement opposition put up by the learned counsel for the respondent University would have to be required to be read in light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Kurukshetra University (Supra). Since it is a case of future career, life and very existence of the petitioner arising from such a decision taken in annexure-7 as well as annexure-9 and the years spent by the petitioner in the University would go waste if the view taken by the University is accepted, in the extraordinary situation and not treating the case of the petitioner to be a precedent, let the University authority either permit the petitioner to sit for Hindi examination - 5 - or be charitable enough to consider granting him one grace mark and declaring his results, either of the options available to the University. The respondent University is directed to show grace in such a matter instead of being stickler of the Rules as grant of grace marks in University across the State is not alien or un-heard of concept. This writ application is allowed with the direction aforesaid. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)