WP(C) 622/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Dibrugar h University and its authorities are represented by Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Coun sel. 2. The petitioner who pursued her B.Sc. Part-II and Part-III Cours e in the Dibrugarh Hanumanbux Surajmal Kanoi College for short the DHSK Colleg e (respondent No.5) challenges the decision of the Dibrugarh university (D.U.), who have refused to declare the petitioner’s final examination results where sh e appeared in the year 2004. The reason for non-disclosure is because, the petit ioner had passed her B.Sc. Part-I examination from another university (Universit y of Jammu) and accordingly to the D.U. authority, unless a student pursues her entire B.Sc. Course from their University, her result for the B.Sc. final examin ation can’t be declared. 3. The petitioner submits that her father is serving in the Indian Air Force (IAF) and was initially posted at Jammu where the petitioner pursued h er B.Sc. Part-I Course under the University of Jammu. Then her father was transf erred from Jammu to Chabua Air Force Station and the petitioner too moved with the family to Dibrugarh. After finding out that she can resume her B.Sc. Course under the Dibrugarh University, she secured admission in 2nd Year of B.Sc., in t he D.H.S.K. College and was allowed to appear in the Part-II examination conduc ted by the Dibrugarh University. Her 2nd year results were declared and she took admission in the same college in the B.Sc. final hear and was again issued admi t card by the Dibrugarh University for the 3rd year examination commencing on 28 .6.2004. Result for B.Sc. examination was declared by D.U. in the first week of October, 2004 but since the petitioner’s result was withheld, she approached the university for her results. Then she was informed by the impugned letter of 6.1 .2005 (Annexure-D) that since she was not eligible to resume her B.Sc. Course fr om 2nd year in an affiliated college under Dibrugarh University in terms of the Regulation 20 of the Rules for Admission on Transfer from other university her f inal results can’t be declared. However, to facilitate result declaration, perm ission was accorded to the petitioner to appear in the B.Sc. Part-I examination once again under the Dibrugarh University, so that the result of her performance in the B.Sc. final examination could be declared. 4.1 Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel submits that while taking admiss ion in the 2nd year B.Sc. Course in the D.H.S.K. College, the petitioner had dis closed that she had successfully completed her B.Sc. Part-I Course under the Uni versity of Jammu and was seeking admission in the affiliated college under Dibru garh University, upon transfer of her Air Force employed father from Jammu to As sam. Since admission was given and the petitioner was permitted to pursue the Pa rt-II and Part-II Courses without any obstruction and she was also issued admit card(s) by the Dibrugarh University for enabling her to appear in the Part-II an d Part-III B.Sc. examinations, she had no reason to suspect during her student l ife at the D.H.S.K College, that her admission was irregular or that she could n ot have been admitted directly into the B.Sc. Part-II class, as a former B.Sc. P art-I student of another university. 4.2 The learned Counsel contends that even if it is assumed that adm ission was mistakenly given by the college authorities and admit card(s) was und eservedly issued by the Dibrugarh University, the result of the final examinatio n could not be withheld, as the petitioner had disclosed fully that she migrated to D.U. after completing the B.Sc. First year, at University of Jammu. 4.3 In support of his submission the learned Counsel relies upon the decision in Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur reported in (1989) 1 SCC 399 to project that, when someone is mistakenly permitted to pursue a c ourse and the student not being at fault, she should not suffer for the mistake committed by the authorities. An unreported decision of this Court rendered on 1 3.2.2007 in WP(C) No. 6452/2006 (Anju Devi vs. The State of Assam and others) is also cited by Mr. Gupta to highlight the special circumstances in this case, fo r declaration of the petitioners B.Sc. final results. 5.1 Appearing for the University authorities, Mr. K. Agarwal, learne d Counsel firstly refers to the applicable Regulation for Admission on Transfer in Dibrugarh University. Reading Rule 20, Mr. Agarwal submits that admission in the 2nd year B.Sc. Course for a migrating student from another university is im permissible and only under very special circumstances, admission in the 1st year may be allowed in an affiliated college, under Dibrugarh University. Accordingl y it is contended that the petitioner could not have been admitted directly in t he B.Sc. 2nd year Course as a former 1st year student under the University of Ja mmu. 5.2 The respondents also contend that it is not possible to scrutini ze the eligibility of each of the applicant(s) who apply to appear in the concer ned examination under the university and merely because, admit card(s) have been issued to the petitioner for enabling her to appear in the B.Sc. Part-II and Pa rt-III examinations, she can’t claim for declaration of her final results. 5.3 The Counsel for the university points out that only during the p reparation of the final year result sheet, the examining authorities realized th at the petitioner had not passed her B.Sc. Part-I examination under the Dibrugar h University and that is how, special dispensation was given to the petitioner, permitting her to appear in the Part-I examination under the Dibrugarh Universit y, so that her final year results could be declared, by considering her to be on e, who had pursued the entire 3 year B.Sc. Courses as a student of Dibrugarh Uni versity. 6. The circumstances under which the petitioner was given admission in the 2nd year B.Sc. course in the D.H.S.K. College are reflected in the repl y given by the college authorities on 19.11.2004, to the notice of the Dibrugarh University. Here the Principal of the College stated that the Office Assistant of his college had negligently given admission, although the College Principal h ad reportedly advised the Office Assistant, to take prior permission from the D. U. authorities before giving admission. The Principal also stated that the admis sion was given without signature/approval of the Principal or the Chairman of th e Selection Board in the admission application of the petitioner. In the same le tter it was also disclosed that due to negligence of the Registration Branch of the Dibrugarh University, she was granted registration for B.Sc. Part-II examina tion and after her results were declared, she was further permitted to appear in the final year of the B.Sc. examination in the year 2004. 7. A perusal of the application(s) given by the petitioner to the C ontroller of Examination, Dibrugarh University on 27.12.2002 and 6.1.2004, shows that the petitioner furnished her B.Sc. Part-I certificates given by the univer sity of Jammu. Thus it would be known to anyone who examines the application th at she had not pursued her B.Sc. Part-I Course from the Dibrugarh University. De spite the deficiency, the Principal of the D.H.S.K. College certified that the p etitioner is eligible to appear in the examination under the D.U. and the Univer sity too issued admit card(s), to enable her to appear in the examination. There fore this is not a case where the student kept anything hidden from either the D ibrugarh University authorities or the authorities of the affiliated college. Bu t the Principal, recommended her to be eligible to appear in the examination and the Dibrugarh University by purportedly considering everything that was disclos ed to them, had issued admit card(s) for the B.Sc. Part-II as well as B.Sc. Part -III examinations, conducted under the Dibrugarh University. 8. If the petitioner couldn’t resume her B.Sc. Course directly from 2nd year under the Dibrugarh University under Rule 20 of the University Regulat ion, it is not understood as to why, the Principal of the College did not take a ny steps for cancellation of her admission in the 2nd year and furthermore, why he countersigned the petitioner’s application form, declaring her to be eligible for examination under the Dibrugarh University. 9. Even with the D.U. Regulation in force, this Court can’t be unmi ndful of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case where, the student wa s allowed to pursue her B.Sc. courses from the year 2002 to 2004 under the Dibru garh University without any obstruction from any quarter and the questionable st atus of her admission was never disclosed to the student till after, she complet ed her course and appeared in the final examination. Surprisingly, she was also issued admit card for appearing in the B.Sc. Part-II examination and her results then was declared without any demurr. But it would be reasonable to expect that , at least at the time of declaration of her B.Sc. Part-II results, the authorit ies of the D.U. should have realized that the petitioner had pursued her B.Sc. P art-I course, from the university of Jammu and not from their university. 10. Therefore assuming that the petitioner was undeservedly given ad mission, the petitioner can’t be faulted for that since she disclosed all partic ulars about pursuing her 1st year course from another university, to both the co llege and the university. Therefore even though the stand of the university in t he impugned letter of 6.1.2005 may be supported under the applicable Regulation( s), I am of the considered view that subjecting the petitioner to the ordeal of passing the B.Sc. Part-I examination afresh under the Dibrugarh University, woul d be highly inequitable and it would be unjust under the these circumstances, to withhold her final years results, only because, she passed her B.Sc. Part-I ex amination, from another university. 11. Upon consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of th is case and also the ratio of the Apex Court’s decision in Ashok Chand Singhvi ( Supra), I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to declare the B.Sc . final examination result of the petitioner within 4 weeks from today. 12. The case stands allowed accordingly.