IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17281 of 2008 KAMLESHWAR NATH VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 27/10/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the University. Despite service of two copies of the writ petition in November, 2008 to facilitate filing of a counter affidavit and the further indulgence granted for the purpose on 29.4.2009, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University. Prayer is made for further adjournment. The Court declines the same. The prayer in this writ application is for publication of the results of the M.Sc. Part-2 final examination held in the year-2006 in the subject of Chemistry in which the petitioner’s daughter Jugnu Verma had appeared. Learned counsel for the University submits that the candidate could not have appeared in 2006 for the Part-1 and Part-2 examinations together. He fairly acknowledges that the candidate did not appear for the part-2 examination at the stage of part-1 examination, but that she appeared in part-1 at the stage of part-2 examination. If the candidate was otherwise not eligible to 2 appear in a paper for any procedural reasons, it was for the University to act in time accordingly. Once a candidate has been permitted to appear at the examination, the procedural lapse on the part of the University cannot prejudice the student. The University heard cannot be heard now to say that even though the fault lay at its door, the candidate must suffer. The Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC 376 has held that once the authorities have permitted the candidate to appear at the examination any procedural lapses become irrelevant and the institution is bound to publish the result. The writ application is allowed to be complied with forthwith without unnecessary delay, by publication of the result. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)