Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2010 (4) dt.24-10-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9422 of 2010 ====================================================== Shyam Kumar Sharma .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The V.C.,B.R.Ambedkar Universi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha ====================================================== 4 24-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the B.R. Ambedkar University and for the Principal, S.K.J. Law College at Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the college). The petitioner is stated to be a student of the five year law course run by the college having taken admission on 13.8.2007. He is aggrieved by the denial of permission to appear in the final examination for the third year of the course on the ground that he had not passed in aggregate the second year examination the results of which have been published subsequently. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that awaiting publication of the second year result, the petitioner was permitted to attend third year classes. The syllabus has been completed. At the stage where he is now required to appear at the final examination for the third year, it is denied on the ground that subsequently the results of the second year had been published which he is stated not to have passed. Referring to Clause-4(d) of the University Regulations, Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2010 (4) dt.24-10-2011 it is submitted that he has not failed in two papers and therefore he should be permitted to appear at the third year examination. The counter affidavit of the college simply states that it is for the University to decide whether to grant relaxation to the petitioner or not. No counter affidavit has been filed by the University. Learned counsel for the University submitted that Clause-4(d) of the Regulations applies in a case where a candidate may have failed in a maximum of two papers but passed in aggregate. The petitioner has not failed in two papers of the second year, but has not passed in the aggregate. The question of permitting him to appear at the third year examination simply does not arise and he must first clear the second year papers before he may be permitted to appear at the third year examination. It is not in controversy that awaiting publication of his second year results the petitioner was permitted to attend third year classes and the syllabus has been completed. The working of the academic calendar is the responsibility of the University. The question of application of the Regulations pre-supposes that the University itself functions in accordance with law and the academic calendar. The normal rule is that if an examination is held, the results are published before the candidate is allowed to progress to Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2010 (4) dt.24-10-2011 the next stage. If the University itself gave a ‘go bye’ to this normal rule and to hide its own deficiencies in not acting according to the academic calendar permitted a student to attend the third year classes without publication of the second year results, the Court finds it difficult to appreciate how the University sees to fall back upon the Regulations. The University appears to be taking advantage of its own wrongs. If the petitioner has been permitted to attend the third year course, where shall the answerability lie for the effort put in by the teachers in taking his lectures, the effort put in by the petitioner to attend the course, the fees paid by him for the third year course, to whose benefit shall it now lie to deny him permission for the third year examination and who shall stand to gain by it. Conversely, will it be to everybody’s loss to deny him permission to appear in the third year examination. But this cannot be allowed to be an unending process where the petitioner may reach the fifth year course in this manner. Naturally, the petitioner also has to display his sincerity and efficiency as a student before he can claim the right to go on to the next year of the course. In the circumstances, the petitioner appears to have made out an arguable case only for appearing at the third year examination subject to clearing the second year papers before he may be permitted to appear at the fourth year final Patna High Court CWJC No.9422 of 2010 (4) dt.24-10-2011 examination of the course. But these issues have to remain subject to the Regulations. It is for the Vice Chancellor to find the answer under the Regulations. Let the Vice Chancellor pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him when the question whether the third year final examination has been held or has not been held shall also be a relevant issue for which again the Vice Chancellor has to find the answer. The writ application stands disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)