IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10301 of 2008 MRITUNJAY KUMAR MISHRA Son of Sri Indra Kant Mishra,Resident of Village & P.O. Sukhsena, PS Barhara Kothi, District Purnea …….. Petitioner Versus 1. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar Madhepura through its Vice Chancellor 2. Registrar, B N Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura 3. Examination Controller, B N Mandal University, Madhepura 4. Principal, Thakur Prasad College, P G Centre, Madhepura ………. Respondents ----------- 02- 23.04.2009 Heard Mr. Kumar Ravi Shankar for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Counsel to Mr. Abhay Kumar for the respondents. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent University to issue the original certificate of M.A. (Music). The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have opposed the writ petition. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner was a student of Thakur Prasad College, P G Centre, Madhepura, in M.A.(Music) course, for the session 1991-93, bearing registration no.2079/87. He appeared at the examination for the said course held in 1994, and the results were published in the same year. Photocopy of the mark-sheet is marked Annexure 2A to the writ petition. He was also issued college leaving certificate dated 23.9.2005 (Annexure 3), issued by the college. Photocopy of the character certificate in respect of the petitioner issued by the college is marked Annexure 3A, and photocopy of his migration certificate dated 13.6.2005, issued by the respondent University, is marked - 2 - Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that his original certificate for the M.A.(Music) examination is not being issued to him inspite of persistent efforts. 2. It appears to me on a perusal of the materials on record that the respondent college is not affiliated to the University in terms of Section 21(1)(d) of the Bihar State Universities Act 1976. The respondent University from this angle is not unjustified in not refusing to issue the certificate. However, certain circumstances weigh in favour of the petitioner. The University did allow the petitioner to appear at the examination knowing full well that the college in question is not affiliated to the University. Annexure-1 is renewal of the registration certificate, which shows that the petitioner was a student of the respondent college. Annexure -2 is the admit card issued by the University, whereby the petitioner was permitted to appear at the examination. Annexure 2/A is the mark-sheet issued by the University. It (the University) has not answered the question as to why it allowed the petitioner to appear, gave the registration number of the University, and further allowed the petitioner to appear at the examination in a situation where no fraud, misrepresentation or the like is attributable to the petitioner. 3. Identical matters came up before this Court in various writ petitions raising identical issues. There are conflicting views of this Court which have been fairly indicated in the counter affidavit. A learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated 24.11.2004, in CWJC No. 2725 of 2004 (Gyan Murti vs. State of Bihar), reported in - 3 - 2005 (1) PLJR 122, dismissed the writ petition for identical relief. A Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 21.8.2008, in LPA No. 1145 of 2008 (Shambhu Anand v. B N Mandal University), reported in 2008(4) PLJR 453, had set aside an identical order passed by the learned single Judge and allowed the appeal, and directed the University to issue the certificate. I must state that the writ petition and the appeal have been disposed of by short orders and cannot be taken to be binding precedents. However, taking into the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the order of the Division Bench, I would prefer to take the view that the equities are in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent University to examine the petitioner’s case afresh and, if he has validly passed the examination, and it does not come across any material as to fraud or misrepresentation attributable to the petitioner, then issue the original certificate. Let the petitioner submit an appropriate representation with a copy of this order to the Registrar of the University. This Court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the representation. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ( S K Katriar ) mrl - 4 -