IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7064 of 2007 SUYASH Versus THE V.C.,PATNA UNIVERSITY & ORS ---------- For the Petitioner : M/s Amit Prakash, Vikas Mohan and Virendra Prasad, Adv. For the University : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha,Adv. ----------- 2. 13/08/2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the marksheet issued by the University, as contained in Annexure-5, in which the first year marks of the petitioner which he had obtained in the first attempt and the marks obtained in the second year have been added to publish his result. Case of the petitioner is that he appeared in the first year Examination of M.A. (Labour & Social Welfare) in the month of December, 2005. However, out of eight papers, he could not appear in two papers, namely, Paper-IV and Paper-V due to some personal reasons. On the basis of marks obtained by him in the rest of the six papers, his aggregate was 338. Since he could not appear in two papers and got less aggregate, he applied to the University to allow him to appear in the first year examination - 2 - again. Said application of the petitioner is annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Application of the petitioner was forwarded by the Department of Labour & Social Welfare which was allowed by the University and the petitioner was allowed to appear in M.A. Part-1 examination again. He appeared so and got aggregate 533 marks in the examination vide Annexure-2. Petitioner’s contention is that if this aggregate 533 marks is taken into account along with his aggregate 527 marks of the second year, his total marks will be much more and his division will improve from 2nd Division to 1st Division. Learned counsel for the University has filed counter affidavit with which he has enclosed regulation of the University. Paragraph 5 of the Regulation permits a candidate, who had failed in Part-I examination or had not appeared in the same, to appear again along with the examination of Part-II. Learned counsel for the University submits that since the petitioner had neither failed nor his case was of non- appearance in the examination, he was not covered by the regulation and therefore, he could not get its advantage. Learned counsel for - 3 - the University has drawn the attention of this Court to the note scribed by the petitioner himself at the bottom of his application in which he stated that due to personal reason he could not appear in M.A. Part-I examination. Learned counsel for the University submits that it was a misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and therefore, he cannot be allowed to derive benefit out of the same. From perusal of Annexure-B, it appears that in column-6 against query as to how many times petitioner had appeared in the examination, it is written by the petitioner that he appeared once. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the form filled up by the petitioner for appearing in the examination, annexed as Annexure-7 to the reply of the petitioner to the counter affidavit. In the form it appears that in column 11 against the query as to whether he had appeared earlier in the examination, he has mentioned `yes’ mentioning his roll numbers etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if at all note scribed by the petitioner at the bottom of the application is considered to be - 4 - wrong, the same was bonafide mistake of the petitioner as he had mentioned in the application that he had appeared in the examination once and to the query in the examination form he had specifically mentioned that he had appeared once with the year of his appearance and roll number. It is true that the petitioner’s case is not strictly covered by the regulation of the University for appearance in M.A. Part-I examination again, which is for those candidates who either failed or not appeared. Petitioner had appeared in the examination but he could appear in two papers because of some personal reason. Be that as it may, from the application of the petitioner as well as from the form filled up by him, it appears that there was no deliberate misrepresentation or concealment of fact of appearance. He may have scribed note in the bottom of the application in confusing manner which may give an impression that he has misrepresented. However, application was forwarded by the Head of the Department, who also ought to have mentioned clearly in the application about appearance of petitioner - 5 - earlier. Application of the petitioner was considered and accepted and he was allowed to appear in the examination, on account of which he appeared and got an aggregate of 533 marks. Since the University authorities had allowed the petitioner to appear in the examination and there does not appear to be deliberate misrepresentation or concealment of fact by the petitioner, equity demands that the petitioner should be granted the relief. In the circumstances, marksheet issued by the University, as contained in Annexure-5 is quashed and the respondent University is directed to take into account the marks obtained by the petitioner in his second attempt of Part- I examination along with marks obtained by him in the Part-II examination to compute his result and declare the same. University shall complete the said exercise and issue marksheet to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is allowed. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)