•^,-' PETITIONER : s« IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION ( C » N0. <^ OF2009 Bandana Sapui, D/o Sudhir Sapui, aged about 28 years, C/o Kamal Gayen, 25 Ekbalpur Lane, Kolkata - 700 023 (WB). ^' Presently residing at Arya Nagar, Near G.S. Arya Girls ^••^;""^^v/> College, Durg, Tahsil arid Distt. .„..^^^^l''y.' Durg~(CG)- ^M^y---'- »^<-"a"' Versus RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, (CG). 2. Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur (CG) through its Registrar. ^'" 3. Officer on Special Duty (Examination)Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur (CG) 4. Principal, G.S. Arya Girls College, Arya Nagar, P.0. Mohan Nagar, Durg, Tah. & Distt. Durg (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ';^^^ -^A^ ^ HJGH^OURT QF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2026 OF 2009 PETITIONER BandanaSapui RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Neerqj Choubey, /^dvocate for the respondent No.2 & 3. Shri Manish Upadhyay, Advocate forthe respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 19th day of October, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 03/01/2009 (Annexure P/2) whereby the candidature of the petitioner for appearing in the examination of B.Ed. Course, was rejected on the ground that the application form was not submitted by the petitioner before the last date of filing of application form and further the order dated 25/02/2009 (An.iexure P/1) losued by the Pt. Ravishankar Shukla. University, Raipur (for short "the respondent University"), which was passed on the representation of the petitioner affirming the view taken in the impugned order dated 03/01/2009. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was pursuing B.Ed. Course in G.S. Arya Girls College, Arya Nagar, Durg {for short "the respondent College"). The petitioner attended the classes regularly and her attendance was 80.14% in the month of February, 2009, but in the month of October it was 69.3%. It appears that the petitioner had full attendance as a whole. The application of the petitioner for writing the B.Ed. examination was rejected vide the impugned order on the ground that the application form was submitted beyond the specified date i.e. on 20th October 2008 with late fee (Annexure R2/2). It is indisputable that the application form was filed on 15/11/2009 beyond the last date of submission of application form with late fee @ Rs. 100/- perday. Contention of Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the petitioner could not file the application form on account of non-supply of the same by the respondent College. The respondent College declined to supply the application form on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce the migration certificate from the earlier university i.e. Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, though, it was not required under the provision of law to produce the migration certificate before making an application for appearing in the B.Ed. examination. The delay on the pa.rt of the petitioner was bona fide and on account of non-supply of the application form by the respondent College. Thus, the petitioner may be permitted to appear in the examination and result thereof may be declared. Shri Choubey, learned counset appearing for the respondent No.2 & 3, submits that the application form of the petitioner was rejected, as the same was filed after the last date with late fe.e was over on 20t October, 2008. Thus, there is no erroror irregularity on the part of the respondent University. Learned counsel relies on the decision of this Court rendered in Kumari Pallavi Sahu v. Vice Chancellor & Others1 whereunder the stand of the respondent University to reject the application form submitted after the due date, was affirmed. He further relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahatir'a Gandhi Lln'versity & Anr. v. Gis Jose & Ors2. Shri Choubey next submits that submission of migration certificate is not 1 Writ Petition (C) No.608 of 2009 (decided on 26/03/2009) 22008AIRSCW6143 a pre-condition for making an application for appearance in the B.Ed. examination. 5. Shri Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent College, submits that there is no dispute that the application form was not given to the petitioner before 05/11/2008, as the petitioner failed to submit the migration certificate of the Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur. Thus, the college cannot be faulted with for non-supply of application form. 6. I have heard le?med counse' appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 7.. It is evident that the application of the petitioner was not rejected on the ground of short of attendance or tack of eligibility for admission to B.Ed. course, but on the ground of late submission of application form, beyond the last date with late fee i.e on 20th October, 2008. It is also not in dispute that the college has failed to supply the application form, which has to be done by the coltege within time when admittedly, the petition^r was pursuing her courses regularly. It appears that the college acted under mistaken beliefthat supply of migration certificate was necessary before giving an application form to the petitioner. Thus, it can safely be held that delay in making the application form after 20th October. 2008, was on account of mistake on behalf of the respondent coltege by not supplying the application form to the petitioner in time. The last date for filing application form without late fee was 4th October, 2008. 8. In Kumari Pallavi Sahu1, this Court upheld the decision of the university to reject application form not on account of late submission of the application form, only, but for the short of attendance of the petitioner therein also. In the caseon hand, the second ground of short of attendance is not available, and, as such, the ratio laid down by this Court in Kumari Pallavi Sahu is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. In Mahatma Gandhi University2, the facts were that the High Court permitted Gis Jose for admissjon to M.Sc. Computer Science course when admittedlv she has secured much less marks than the minimum requirement of cut-off marks. In the case on hand, it is not a case that the petitioner was neither eligible nor has attended the course regularly. Thus, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. During pendency of this petition, this Court by order dated 23/04/2009 directed the respondent University to permit the petitioner to write the B.Ed. examination 2009. On 23/04/2009 it was further made dcar that the rctitioner would not claim any right for admission on the basis that she has been permitted to write the aforesaid examination. The petitioner has already appeared in the examination now result has been withheld by the respondent No.2 & 3 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit the application form within the specified time even with late fee. 11. Be that as it may, without considering the illegality and validity of the case, having regard to the facts situation of the case and when the petitioner is eligiole for pursuiiig B.Ed. course and there was no short of attendance, the respondent University is directed to declare the result of the B.Ed. examination 2009, in respect of the petitioner, subject to payment of late fee @ Rs.100/- per day from 20 October till 15th November, 2008. This order may not be treated as precedent. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. -—-— Arun Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge