IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13442 of 2002 RAJANI wife of Randhir Kumar resident of House No. 1429, opposite M-2/10, North Srikrishnapuri, P. S. Srikrishnapuri, Distt. Patna. …..Petitioner Versus 1. THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY through its Registrar Bodh Gaya, Gaya. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Gaya 3. The Examination Controller, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Gaya. …. Respondents ----------- 4. 07.07.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Magadh University. In this writ petition, the petitioner has made prayer for the following reliefs:- “(1). That this is an application for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to rectify the petitioner’s result of the B.A.(Psychology) Honours Examination 1996-98 conducted by the Magadh University and thereafter to the declare the petitioner to have passed the said examination and/or pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem proper.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the declaration of result of B.A. (Psychology) Hons. of the University declaring the petitioner to have failed in such examination as recorded in the mark sheet dated 7.9.1999 is apparently an 2 error of record wherein it has been mentioned that she has failed in part II Hons. Theory paper. Counsel for the petitioner in this respect would rely on the mark sheet of part II examination dated 23rd of June 1998 wherein it has been shown that she had secured 40 marks out of 75 in theory paper and there was no pass marks in the said mark-sheet. He further refers to remarks column to show that once the petitioner obtained 254 marks in aggregate in part II examination, the respondents cannot be allowed to take a different stand at the time of declaration of final result of B.A. (Psychology) Hons. especially when on the basis of said mark-sheet of the second year she was admitted in the third year and has been allowed to complete her course of third year and also to sit in the examination of third year. Counsel for the Magadh University refers to his counter affidavit wherein the entire thing has been sought to be explained in one paragraph, namely paragraph 4 which reads as follows;- 3 “4. That with respect to the statements made in paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition it is stated that Part II Psychology Hons. paper consists of two papers of 100 each. 100 marks is for theory paper and 100 marks is for practical paper. She has secure 45 marks in theory paper for Honours mark. The petitioner has secured 40 marks only in theory paper. In theory qualifying mark for Hons is 45. Hence, petitioner has not qualified for Hons and this fact is known to every student in that course. It is mistake of Tabulator that in place of “promoted” he has mentioned pass.” This Court upon examination of the aforementioned stand including the stand taken in the counter affidavit sworn on 12.4.2007 is of the opinion that the University will under an obligation first to disclose the materials on the basis of which it can be said that there was requirement of getting 45 marks in the theory paper of second year and that too once the petitioner would not secure that much of marks she would automatically fail in such examination. This fact can be verified either from a course of study or regulations framed for B.A. Hons. examination or any regulation of B.A. (Psychology) Hons. or some other statute. This Court, however, would clarify 4 that if the University take a plea that on account of time gap between the date of declaration of result and the date of filing of this writ application such documents have already been destroyed, the authority will be required to communicate to the petitioner but in that case also at least from the tabulation register of all the three years it will have to be demonstrated that the petitioner had failed in the second year theory paper and yet the tabulator had wrongly declared having passed. In order to enable the University to take an early decision in the matter the petitioner may therefore approach the Registrar of the University along with a copy of this order and a self-contained representation whereupon Registrar, University with reference to the issue involved in this writ application will take final decision preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court 5 has expressed no opinion on the merits of the case of either of the parties but then it should always be kept in mind that if on the one hand University has an obligation to declare the result of an examinee in a correct manner and in accordance with law, it is also the duty of the student to approach the authority or the court within a period of reasonable time. In this case the delay of almost four years after declaration of result and the statement of the petitioner in paragraph 9 that she has already married and having two children and therefore has no real tenacity to reappear in the examination can hardly be an explanation for the delay in filing of the writ application. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)