IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18932 of 2008 RAVI RANJAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 04.02.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent Magadh University. Prayer is made for adjournment on behalf of the University for filing of counter affidavit. This Court is not persuaded to grant any further adjournment in view of nature of the order to be passed. The petitioner is before this Court with a prayer for issuance of his mark sheet and necessary certificate of his having cleared B.Sc. Mathematics Part III Examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner passed the lst year examination in the year 2006. He failed in the 2nd year examination in 2007. He appeared for the 3rd year examination on 8.1.2008 and subsequently cleared the failed 2nd year examination in April 2008. According to the cross list issued by the respondent University with regard to his 3rd year examination, the petitioner submits that he has passed. His result is not being published citing the reason that he cleared the 3rd year examination and only thereafter cleared his 2nd year papers which should have been vice versa. Learned Counsel for the University urged that the petitioner could not have appeared at the 3rd year examination unless he had first cleared the 2nd year papers. If the petitioner was permitted to appear at the 3rd year examination and as a matter of fact he has cleared the 3rd year examination as also the 2nd year examination though subsequent to the 3rd year examination when it should have been prior in time, this Court is not persuaded to deny the fruits of his labour to the petitioner on technicalities. It was for the University authorities to deny him permission to appear at the 3rd year examination unless he had cleared the 2nd year papers. It was the University which permitted him to do so and now seek to question their own actions. There are no allegations against the petitioner of having done by resort to any illegal methods. only when he would have been eligible to be promoted to 3rd year. Be that as it may the controversy looses its relevance in view of the conduct of the respondents themselves. The administrative lapse aspect of the matter in the office of the University is an entirely different issue and it is for the University to set its own house in order, by taking appropriate action against the concerned. Relying upon the judgement reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 (Shri Krishan Versus Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra) in paragraph 7 and 9 where in the Supreme Court has observed that once the candidate was allowed to appear at the examination rightly or wrongly, the power to deny permission to appear at the examination had exhausted itself. The relief could not be denied on any antecedent grounds invoked subsequently. The University authorities were themselves guilty of dereliction of duty. This application has therefore to be allowed. If there be no other impediment the respondents are obliged to publish 3rd year result of the petitioner and make available the mark sheet and certificate to him on payment of necessary fee. Let such consideration be done by the University and appropriate action taken within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)