IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 8865 of 2010 1. ANUJ KUMAR S/O SRI NAGENDRA PRASAD RAI R/O VILL.- BEDUPUR, P.S.- EKMA, DISTT.- SARAN 2. BIDYANAND PRASAD YADAV S/O BINDESHWARI PRASAD YADAV R/O VILL.- GODHIYA, P.S.- SIKARGANJ, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 3. SHYAMA PRAVEEN D/O MD. JAMALUDDIN R/O BHAWANIPUR ZIRAT, P.S. CHHATAUNI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 4. MD. ASHHAD S/O DR. MD. FIROZ AHMAD R/O SHISHUAN, P.S.- BANJARIA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 5. RAKESH KUMAR S/O SRI MAULA CHAND MISHRA R/O BARHARWA KALA, P.S.- KOTWAN, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 6. RAUSHAN KUMAR S/O DR. RAMESH NARAYAN MISHRA R/O SRI KRISHNA NAGAR, P.S.- MOTIHARI TOWN, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 7. PRADEEP KUMAR KEWAT S/O UMESH KEWAT R/O PAUCHGAN, P.S.- SEMRA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 8. RANJAN KUMAR S/O SRI ARBIND YADAV R/O SRI KRISHNA NAGAR, P.S.- MOTIHARI TOWN, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 9. RAVI KUMAR S/O DR. SACHIDA NAND PRASAD R/O SRIKRISHNA NAGAR, P.S. MOTIHARI TOWN, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 10. RUPAM D/O PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH R/O SRI KRISHNA NAGAR, P.S. MOTIHARI TOWN, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 11. DHIRAJ RANJAN S/O PRIYA RANJAN SHARMA R/O MOHALLA- BHAWANIPUR ZIRAT, P.S.- CHHATAUNI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 12. SHASW KUMAR S/O UMA SHANKAR SINGH R/O RATANSAR, P.S. PATAHI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 13. PRAGYA KUMARI D/O SRI BHOLA SINGH R/O SHANTIPURI, P.S.- MOTIHARI TOWN, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 14. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O PADHARATH THAKUR R/O SRI KRISHNA NAGAR, P.S.- MOTIHARI TOWN, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 15. ANJANA KUMARI D/O SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHAUDHARY R/O ARYA SAMAJ CHAUK, P.S.- CHHATAUNI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 16. CHANDA KUMARI D/O RAM PRAKASH DAS AT R/O GARA, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 17. SUNITA KUMARI D/O DHIRENDRA PRASAD R/O BASWARIA, P.S.- MOTIHARI MUFFASIL, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 18. ASHOK KUMAR S/O SRI CHANDRADEO PRASAD R/O BASWARIA, P.S.- MOTIHARI MUFFASIL, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 19. ABHISHEK KUMAR S/O SHANKAR SINGH R/O KALU PAKAD, P.S.- FEUHARA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 20. RIJAWANULLAH THAKURAI S/O AZIMULLAH HAQUE R/O CHHATAUNI, P.S.- BARA, DISTT.- BARA (NEPAL) 21. ARBINDA PRASAD SAH S/O MAHENDRA SAH R/O IRANWARI, P.S.- GAUR, DISTT.- ROHTAK (NEPAL) 22. ADITYA NAMANI S/O PRAKASH NAMANI R/O UPPER MARKET NEAR P.O.- KARAN PRAYAG, P.S.- KARAN PRAYAG, DISTT.- CHAMAULI, (UTTRAKHAND) 23. DINKAR KUMAR S/O BHUPENDRA KUMAR PANDEY R/O BARHDWA KALA, P.S.- KOTWAN, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 2 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. BABA SAHEB BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR 3. THE REGISTRAR, BABA SAHEB BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION BABA SAHEB BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 5. RABINDRANATH MUKHERJEE, AYURVED CHIKITSA MAHAVIDYALAYA THROUGH ITS MANAGING COMMITTEE P.S.- MOTIHARI MUFFASIL, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 6. PRINCIPAL INCHARGE SHRI INDRA DEO SINGH RABINDRANATH MUKHERJEE AYURVED CHIKITSA MAHAVIDYALAYA AT AND P.O.- MOTIHARI MUFFASIL, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN *** For the petitioner : M/s Dhananjay Kumar & Sunil Prasad, Advocates For the University : Mr Ajay Bihari Sinha For respondent No 6 : Mr Shri Prakash Shrivastava *** 3 27.05.2010 This case has been listed today pursuant to order dated 19.05.2010 passed by this Court. The Principal of the College in question being RNM Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital, Motihari has appeared and filed a counter affidavit. University is represented. After hearing the parties, with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The matter relates to the examination of 01st year for the 3 course of Bachelor in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) of the Session 2007-2008 as are to be conducted by the University. As is usual in Bihar, private Colleges exploit the scarcity situation of availability of seats and create problems for students who then became unsuspecting victims. In respect of a batch, University has granted permission of number of seats available for admission. It is not in controversy that so far as petitioner’s institution is concerned, the number of seats authorised is 40. The problem has arisen because having taken 40 students in a particular batch, some students failed to clear their first year examination. The rest are promoted but the detained students, for some inexplicable reason, are made to seek admission afresh. This complicates the situation inasmuch as the intake number being 40 theoretically gets reduced but admission for 40 is taken up and when for the next batch, the list is to be sent for examination, there are more than 40 students. That starts a triangular tussle between the University, the College and the students each exploiting the situation for his benefits. To this, the complication is added when there are some students who fail thrice in the same class. They are to take fresh admissions because at whatever stage, they fail thrice, they have to join course right from the beginning all over again. This compounds the confusion further. In the present case, it seems when the question of first year examination of Session 2007-2008 came up, lot of controversy was generated, for whose benefit, this Court would not speculate. Ultimately, it appears that the matter received the attention of Chancellor of the University. In order to set at rest controversy, the Chancellor of 4 University appointed an Enquiry Committee to enquire into and submit a report about the genuine first year students of the batch 2007-2008. The Enquiry Committee so appointed by the Chancellor called for information from the University and from the College. It inspected the College records. It heard the parties and on basis of records available and analysis thereof, it submitted its report to the Chancellor who, by his Memo dated 02.12.2009, was pleased to direct the University firstly to cancel the registration of those first year students of Session 2007-2008 who were not admitted in the College as per admission register of the College but wrongly registered in the University on the recommendation of the then Principal. The Chancellor further ordered to allow the registration of those 34 students who have been admitted in the College during the Session 2007-2008 as per admission register, if not already registered. The list of the 34 genuine students of the first year of the batch 2007- 2008 was also enclosed. It was then directed that it is only these 34 students who would be allowed to appear in the special examination in respect of Session 2007-2008 as first year students of BAMS. Pursuant to the said direction of the Chancellor, the Controller of Examination of Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur wrote accordingly to the Principal of the said RNM Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Motihari by his letter dated 18.12.2009. The petitioners only want implementation of this order and the examination is to begin from 01st of June, 2010 and they do want to be kicked around like a football between two goal posts, the University and College once having been found to be genuine. Petitioners are 23 out of 5 the list of 34 genuine students. Having considered the matter, I find it is not more a dispute that there are only 34 genuine admissions to the first year BAMS Course of the Session 2007-2008 in respect of the College aforesaid. It is not in dispute that the Chancellor/University has copies of all relevant records of these 34 students. The new Principal, who has now filed a counter affidavit, states that upon the Enquiry Report of the Chancellor, other students, whose list was submitted by the College, have ransacked the College office and destroyed the records. It is apparent that those 40 names, as submitted by the College earlier, was fraudulently submitted and the names were wrong. University would be free to take any penal deterrent action in this regard against the responsible person but that will not come in way of University permitting the 34 genuine students from taking their examination. The learned counsel for the University submits that examination can only be taken once these 34 students are duly registered and their examination fee and forms are submitted by the College to the University. Once these formalities are completed, University would be in a position to hold special examination for this batch. In my view, these are only formalities to be completed with which students have little to do. So far as registration with University is concerned, all particulars of admission etc are already with the University if not with Chancellor which the University can always obtain because they were the basis of the Enquiry Report. Thus, on payment of registration fee, if any, by these 34 students, University is bound to grant 6 them registration for the aforesaid Session and course in respect of the aforesaid College. Once that is over, which is only a matter of formality and time, the College which again has all the particulars and they have been vandalised, copies thereof are available with the University or the Chancellor. It is again a matter of formality to process the examination forms and fees and send it to the University. Thus seen, there is no disputed entity involved whatsoever. The students are identified. The batch is identified. The course is identified. Their admissions have been accepted as genuine. Admission particulars are available. Thus, I see no reason why all the paper formalities cannot be completed by the College and the University. Learned counsel for the University brings to the notice of this Court that examinations are already scheduled to begin from 01st of June, 2010 for the first year students. The time to complete formality is apparently inadequate. Students are not to blame. Having considered the matter, I, therefore, direct that the 34 students would be issued admit cards immediately and would be permitted to take the first year examination under proper security cover arranged by the University which will not tolerate any indiscipline by any sections of students in this regard. Once the examination is over then as a matter of exception, the University and the College and the students would join together to complete the process of registration and filling and filing of fees and forms within 15 days of the examination ending. This is, however, subject to the satisfaction of the Principal that formalities were not completed earlier. 7 This disposes of the writ petition. In view of the urgency of the matter, let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the University for suitable action. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)