UHW l'^,^. ^ HIGH COURT OF JUDSCATURE CHHATTtSGARK : BiLASPUR SiNGLE BENCH : HON?SLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, G.J. WRIT PETJTSON N0.2055 OF 2005 PiTITJQNER RESPONDENTS ver^us 1. 2. 3. Yugvir Singh Gupte, Aged about 22 years, S/o Shri Harshvir Singh Gupta, B.E. (I.T.) Shri Shankaracharya Cofiege of Engjneenng and Technology, Junwani, Bhilai, Tahsil & DEstrid Durg (CG) Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Ralpur (C.G.) Through: Registrar. Shri Shankaracharya Coftege of Englneenng aneS Technology, Bhilai Through: Principal. Dr. B.P. Sahu, Dy. Registrar (Exam.), Pt. Ravishankar Shukta University, Raipur (C.G.). Present : Mr. V.G»Tamaskar, learned counsej for the petitioner. SVIr. J.R. Verma, leamed Counset for the re&pondent/University. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 1st February, 2006) The petitioner Is a student of Shri Shanteracharya College of Engjneering and Tochnoiogy, Junwani, Bhilai, pursuing ©cour^e of 9tudios loading to B.E. Dogroo. Tho B.E. Eighth Semester Examination was schedut^cs to commonce from 07/06/2005. Th@ p@tition©rfiled this writ petition, in this Court, on 15/05/2005, complaining that the respondent-University refused permission to him to appear for the B.E. Elghth Semester Examination sch^duled to be held from 07/06/2005 for the reason that he did not pass B.E. Fourth Semester Examinatlon in the subject of Mathematics iV. This Court while entertalning this writ petition, ^J ^^. ^" "--^:i by ite order dated 31/05/2005, directed the respondent-Universify to alfow the to appear for the B.E. Eighth Semester ExaminatiOt"! as weil as B.E. Fourth Semester Examjnation in the subject of Mathematlcs JV. However, the Court directed that the resuits of the examinations shouid not be declared without the feave of the Court The order by this Court on 31/05/2005 rem^ins un^Itered till date. (2) I have heard learned counsel for the partles. Shri V.G. Tamaskar learned counset for the petitioner would contend that the petitloner had for the B,E.. Fourth Semester Examination in the aubjeot of MathematSc^ IV, conducted in the month of Ootober 2004, but, his resuit was withheld arid the same was deciared only on 15103/2005: wh^fQa^ B.E. S^vonth SQmQ^ter Examination a^ w^il a^ B.E. Fourth Semester Examlnation scheduied to be commenced from 17/03/2005 and due to want of reasonable time. fhe petitioner couid not appear for the B.E. Fourth Semester ExamEnation in the subject of Mathematlcs IV commenced from 17/03/2005. It was contended that Ifthe University were to declare the resuit of the pgtitioner intlie B£.Fourth Seme^ter Examination in the ^ubject of Mathematic^ IV within a reasonabie time, the petitioner would have prepared himself and appearcc! for thQ ^xamination which commQnced from 17/03/2005. It app^ar? to my mind this Court appreciating the above clrcumstances, by its order dated 31/05/2005 permjtted the petitioner-student to appear not-only for the B.E. Elghth Semester Examlnatjon, but also B.E. Fourth Semester Examination In the subject of Mathematics iV, and S am toid that accordingly the ostltioner-student appeared In both the examinations, but, hte resuite are not deotared in view of the directlon fo^ued by this Court not sb -A. to dectare the resutts without the Seave of the Court. Shri Tamaskar woutd contend that denlai of the admissjon-eard to the petitioner to appear for the B.E. Eighth Semester Examination, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was totaliy arbltrary, unreasonable and vjotative of the princlpies of justice.- Shrl J,R. Verma, leemed Standing Counsel for the respondent-University, per contra, whiie supporting the refusal of the Unsversity to permit the petiiioner to appear for the B.E. Eighth Seme©ter Examinatlon commenced from 07/06/2005, would point out that the petitsoner was aware of th@ result of the B.E. Fourth Semester Examination in the subject of Mathematics IV conducted in the month of October 2004 and that is why he appfled for the admission-card and the same was granted to him as per Annexure-P/1 dated 15/03/2005, and having obtalnecl the admlssion-card, the petltloner for the reasons best known to him, did not for the examlnation of the B.E. Fourth Semester Examination in the subject of Mathematics iV and, therefore, he is not entitted to any roiief at the hands of this Court. Learned Standing Counset would atso draw my attention to Clause 10 of Ordinance No.77 and contend that since admittedly the petitioner did not pass-out In B.E. Fourth Semester Examination in the subject of Mathematics fV, he was not entitlect to appear in the B.E. Ejghth Semester Examinatlon commenced from 07/00/2005. (3) Havlng heard tearned counsei for the parties. the only thing for me to conslder Is whether any case is made out for this Court to step-in under Article 226 of the Constitutlon of india and intervene in the impugned actlon of the respondent-University in refusing permission to the petitioner to appear for the B.E. Eighth Semester Examination S| '^.. ••-'^. I;. commeneed on 07/OS/2005. it is true that the Ordinance framed by th@ respondent -Uiiiyefsity has statutory force- Clause 10 of the Ordinance No.77 reads as foliows: "10. A candidate shali be eligibie for admisslon to the V, VI, V!i and V!il semester. provided he/she has passed the first. second, third and fourth semester respectiveiy. But he shall be aiiowed to appear sn any two or the three consecutive 3emester examination." The provisjons of Clause 10 of Ordinance No.77 make it very ciesr that a candlctate In order to be eijglbte for appearing for the examinatlon In the B.E. Eighth Ssmester, he must have passed 1, li, !II and !V Semester Examinations. In the instant as on the date of the commencement of B,E. Eighth Semester Examination, the petitioner dsd not pass the B.E. Fourth Semester Examination in the subject of Mathematics IV. Buf, tn©facts of this case would show apparent irrationafity on th@ part of the respondent-Universify. The fact that the result ofthe petitioner in thu B.E. Fourth Semester Examjnation in the subject of Mathematics IV, conducted in the month of October 2004, was deciared oniy on 15/03/2005 and the next examination for ths same subject was scheduSed to be heid on 17/03/2005, i§not ^eriously disputed before me. In thi5 the petitigner had to appear for the Seventh Semester Examination aSso whieh was aiso oommenoed from 17/03/2005. That faot ie ateo not disputed. in tho contsxi ofthis case, 1 find force in tho grievancQ ofthe petttioner that iffhe respondent-University vvrere to decfare his result and giv^ -a reasonable tjme for him to appear for the next examinatjon in the B.E. Fourth Semester Examlnatton in the subject of Mathematics !V, he would have appeared and cleared the subject and that would have enabied him to &-- ij^ 1 -... <... appear for the B.E. Eighth Sem^ster Examination commenced from 07/06/2005. There is no need for me to diSste on this aspect further, because, this Court appreciating the circymstances stated above thought It appropriate and just to permlt the pet'rtioner-student to appear for the B,E.. Fourth Examlnation in the of Mathemattes IV along with B.E. Eighth Semester Exammatjon and accordingly h@ was ailowed to appear in both the Examsnations by the Univfersity and by this time hte porformanco in tho ^xaminations mu^t havo boon asse^sed and kopt in seatoa covers because of th@ direction tssued by this Court not to dectare hls resuits v/ithout the ieave of the Court. { am of the considered opinlon that the ruie of rationaijty and fairness in action shoujd persuade the Court to grant atieast a Jimited relief to the petltioner notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 10 of the Ordinance No.77. Undeniably, there was a -serious lapse on the part of the Unlverslty in declaring the result of the examination taken by the petitioner«studentin the month of October 2004 within a reasonable timo and giving only two days' time, nay, S say a day's tim@, to th@ petitioner-student to prepare and appaar for th@ noxt examjnation in the B.E. Fourth Semester Examination in the subjecf of iVlathematics JV. (4) In th@ r^sult and for the foregolng rca^ons, 1 dispo^Q of th@ writ petition vv'ith the foStowsng directions: The respondent-University, in the first instance, shali deciare resuit of the petJtioner in the B.E. Fourth Semester Examlnat'ton in the -subject of Mathematics IV and if it is found that he has agaln failed in the B.E. Fourth Semester Ex©mln©tionin the ^ubject of Mathematlcs IV; thero i3 no need By-oye^A \ ^ to dedarc th@ resuite of the petttionef §n the B.E. Eighth Semester Examination. in that event, the petitioner shaii appear and pass the B.E. Fourth Semester Examjnation in the subject of Mathematics IV in order to enable him to appear for the B.E. Eighth Semester Examination. On the other hand, If the petitioner has in the B.E. Fourth Semester Examination In the subjeoi of Mathematics IV, the respondent- Univ^rsity is directod to deciare the results of the B.E. Eighth Semester Examlnation also. The shali beartheir raspective costs. Sd/- Chief Justice