IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3716 of 2011 Niraj Kumar S/o Hardev Prasad R/o Mehmood Chowk, Dahiyawan Ps- Chhapra PS- Chhapra Town Distt- Saran------ ---------------------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. Jai Prakash University through its Vice Chancellor, Rahul Sankrityayan Nagar PO- Chhapra, PS- Chhapra Muffasil, Distt. Saran 2. Vice Chancellor Jai Prakash University Rahul Sankrityayan Nagar, Chhapra PO- Chhapra PS- Chhapra Muffasil, Distt- Saran 3. Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Rahul Sankrityayan Nagar, PO- Chhapra, PS- Chhapra Muffasil, Distt. Saran 4. Principal Rajendra College, near Gudri Chhapra PS- Bhagwan Bazar, Distt- Saran 5. Head of Dept. (Economics) P.G. Rajendra College near Gudri Chhapra, PS- Bhagwan Bazar, Distt- Saran------- --------------------------------------------------Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 1.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is a student who did his graduation in Physic Honours. He decided to change the stream and subject at the Post Graduate level by settling for Economics. He approached the authority of Rajendra College Chapra for admission in M. A. in Economics and was even granted admission to the said course. When it came down to submitting form and fee for examination of M.A. Previous year the college and university authority refused to take cognizance on the ground that the regulation does not permit the university to accept forms and fee of the petitioner. He ought not to have been admission in economics at the post graduate level after having done B.Sc. in Physic Honours. Petitioner had approached the High Court earlier in yet another writ application, order thereof is annexure-1.At that stage the Court did not give any indulgence or direction in favour of the petitioner but allowed the respondents specially the university to take 2 a decision on the issue. The order dated 30.1.2010 passed by the university is annxure-7 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. The authorities have categorically stated in the said order that the university’s regulation does not permit anybody to take admission in a subject at M.A. level which he had not pursued in graduation. They have fixed responsibility of such omission on the college in question. They ordered annulment of the admission order in the said course as well as refund of the fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all these cannot be done by the university respondent as they are barred by law. In this regard he relies on a decision rendered in the case of State of Bihar & Others vs. Anil Kumar reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 405. This was a case in which the State was in appeal before the Division Bench. Issue was non-grant of permission to the respondent to appear in final MBBS examination due to pendency of an enquiry relating to the caste certificate furnished by him at the time of admission. Taking the entirety of the issue as well as the fact that the student was permitted to pursue his study for almost three years and this fact emerged only in the final year, the Division Bench keeping in mind the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in famous Kurukshetra University case reported in AIR 1976 SC 376, dismissed the appeal and permitted the respondent to continue his study. Since emphasis and reliance has been placed by the petitioner on this decision as well as the ratio of Hon’ble Apex Court 3 this Court can only say that the ratio available in that case is not applicable in this case as petitioner was never allowed to sit for any examination so far. His effort is at gaining entry to an examination at the threshold. One fact is not disputed that for grant of admission to the course, the university had no role. Admission was granted by the constituent college. But if the college in question had granted admission to the petitioner contrary to the regulation formulated by the university then whether it would be fair to pin the university down for the error, omission or mischief played by the constituent college. Obviously courses of study have to be pursued in terms of the regulation notified by the university and it is not on the free will of the student to take admission in any subject according to his convenience. Since the educational system is rigid on this count, till such regulations are challenged to be arbitrary, they will have to be enforced. There is no material emerging from the pleading in the writ application that the university was a consenting party to the admission given to the petitioner in economics at M.A. level. If the university did not permit the petitioner to sit in M.A. previous year examination despite his studying for a period of one year, there is reason in existence and the university cannot be faulted for the same. So far loss of academic year to the petitioner is concerned by giving him the benefit of doubt at this stage the Court can only give him liberty to sue the college in question for appropriate damages. This Court is not inclined to give any direction to permit the 4 petitioner to sit in the examination, contrary to regulation in place or holding the university responsible in any manner on this count. Petitioner has option of other university where he can take admission of his choice if that university has such a mechanism in place otherwise he may have to change the stream and subject if he wants to acquire post graduate degree here. In view of above no writ will be issued to the university to allow the petitioner to sit in M.A. Previous year examination. This writ application is therefore dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)