IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9395 of 2011 1. Farhan Ansari SON OF MD. MOTIUR RAHMAN, RESIDNET OF MOGALPURA, P.S. MEHASI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. 2. ALAMGEER ALAM SON OF MAQBOOK ALAM RESIDENT OF MOHALLA TAPIN NORTH 42 NO. P.S. CHARHI, HAZARIBAGH. 3. PAPPU KUMAR JHA SON OF SRI SHAILENDRA JHA RESIDENT OF THEAKPURA, P.S. RANIGANJ, ARARIA. 4. RAMAN KUMAR BAIDYA SON OF BATESHWAR BAIDYA RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SIKKAT, P.S.BARAN, KATIHAR. 5. MD. SHAHID AFRIDI SON OF ANIS ANSARI RESIDENT OF MOHALLA TLIA, P.S. BANKA, BANKA. 6. ASHISH KUMAR RAI SON OF SRI LALAN KUMAR RAI RESIDENT OF MIRDAUL. P.S. NARPATGANJ, ARARIA. 7. SAUMITRA ROY SOMU SON OF SAROJ KUMAR ROY RESIDENT OF BHOJPUR, P.S. TARABARI, ARARIA. 8. MD. ISHTEYAQUE ASHRAF SONOF MD. ISLAM ASHRAF RESIDENT OF MUSHKIPUR, P.S. GOGARI JAMALPUR, KHAGARIA. 9. AMIT KUMAR SOURAB SON OF BIMAL KUMAR KARN RESIDENT OF SHAKETVIHAR, P.S. PHULWARI ANISHABAD, PATNA. 10. NEHA JHA SON OF DILIP KUMAR JHA RESIDENT OF PURAB TOLA KAHALGAON, NEAR KHEMKA CAMPUS, P.S. KAHALGAON, BHAGALPUR. 11. SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV @ SANTOSH KUMAR SON OF HIRA PRASAD YADAV RESIDENT OF NAUDEGHA, P.S. BAHERI, DARBHANGA. 12. SUNNY KUMAR SON OF ASHOK KUMAR RESIDENT OF MADHUBANI, P.S. K. HAT, DISTRICT PURNEA. 13. KAUSHAL SINGH SON OF BISHNUDEO SINGH RESIDENT OF HARIPUR PIPE ROAD, P.S. SAHIBGANJ, SAHIBGANJ. 14. SANNY KUMAR SON OF LAXMI SAH RESIDENT OF PIPARA P.S. BANMANKHI, PURNEA. - 2 - 15. SUMIT KUMAR SON OF SADANAND YADAV RESIDENT OF MADHUBANI, P.S. K. HAT, DISTRICT PURNEA. 16. SHISHIR KUMAR SON OF AMRENDRA PRASAD GUPTA RESIDENT OF SIPAHITOLA SHAKATI NAGAR, P.S. K. HAT, PURNEA. 17. DEEPAK KUMAR SON OF KAMESHWAR VISHWAKARMA RESIDENT OF BELAYAUB, P.S. BAHADURPUR, DARBHANGA. 18. GAURAV PRAKASH SON OF OM PRAKASH YADAV RESIDENT OF NAYATOLA RIKABGANJ, P.S. K. NAGAR, PURNEA. 19. GAUTAM KUMAR SON OF AWADHESH CHAUDHARY RESIDNET OF LOMA, P.S. JANDAHA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. Versus The B.N.Mandal University & Or . ----------- 4 08/07/2011 The Court fails to understand as to how an University is run in the State of Bihar. Students have to wait for declaration of their results for about one year for the examination held in the last year. In the present case also petitioners have been promoted and allowed to continue their studies for the 3rd year in the Engineering for over 11 months without their results of the 2nd year being declared. The 2nd year results have just come in the nick of time in the sense that when the students were preparing to sit for the 3rd year examination, they have now been barred or are being prevented because the University refused to accept their form and fees on the - 3 - ground that they have failed in more than three papers. After the University/College has permitted these students to pursue their education for almost a year in the next higher grade, that whole year cannot vanish because there is some contribution on the part of the Institutions as well in permitting the petitioners to pursue their studies for the whole academic year. There are regulations in place but those regulations have to be applied strictly when the Institution sticks to a time schedule for holding examinations and declaring results. World over, results are declared much before admissions are over to the next year but then in such Institutions of Bihar they have their own rules and yardsticks. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the University in refusing to accept form and fees could have merited consideration, if in similar circumstance, the High Court had not permitted other students to sit for the next examination irrespective of their failure with a rider that they must clear all the papers before the next examination. Since such reliefs have been granted in the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the - 4 - Controller of Examination of B. N. Mandal University that they will be obliged to accept the form and fees of the students for the examination in question subject to the condition, provided they declare their results well in time for the previous session and the petitioners are given liberty to sit for all those papers in which they have failed. This writ application is disposed of with the observation aforesaid. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)