./v r>.^^yy" ^^^- ^^ ^••y'y .^1; y ^^~ ^^' @ : 1€^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (0 N0. 2^Z^/2Q1Q PETITIONER Dheeraj Kumar Loi, S/o Shri Mani Ram Loi, aged about 23 years, permanent resident of village- Jamhari, P.O.-Jamhari, P.S. & Tehsil-Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) -^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS l)s Chhattisgarh College ofAgriculture, Through its Principal, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) -^' 2) The Principal, Chhattisgarh College of Agriculture, Bhilai, District-Durg 3f Indira Gandhi Agriculture University, Raipur, Through its Registrar, Krishak Nagar, Raipur 4) The Registrar, Indira Gandhi Agriculture University, Krishak NaLgar, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA p HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fONo. 1227 of 2010 Petitioner Resoondents Petitioner Respondents Mahendra Kumar Yadav Versus Chhattisgarh Agriculture Engineering Coilege & Others & W.P.fONo. 2225 of 2010 Dheeraj Kumar Loi Versus Chhattisgarh College of Agriculture & Othere Wrjt Petition underArticte 226 ofthe Constitution of India DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri AS Rajput, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri Ramakant Mishra, Advocate for respondent No. 3 & 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21s' day of July, 2010) Per I.M. Quddusi, J. By this common order, Writ Petition (C) Nos. 1227 of 2010 and 2225 of 2010 are being disposed of as common facts and issues are involved in these writ petitions. By these writ petitions, the-petitioners, who are student of B.Tech. of Chhattisgarh Agriculture Engineering College, Dhanora, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, have sought a relief inter alia a direction to the respondent authorities to permit them to take admission and appear in the examination of Ist Semester of third year course of B.Tech, and the impugned letter dated \^(s V" tt^.'(B?SS'^£'S^ l!t!Si'ISiSSBa$>' (i:MiKiwisr 12.12.2009, disallowing them to admit in Ist Semester of third year course, be quashed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner of W.P(C) No. 1227/10 i.e.Mahendra KumarYadav and Dheeraj Kumar Loi [petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2225/10] appeared in the examination of Ist Semester of first year of B.Tech. course in the year 2006-07. They were failed in two subjects. Thereafter, they repeated those subjects by taking admission in llnd Semester of first year course but they were absent in llnd Semester but later on they appeared therein. The Rolt No. of Mahendra Kumar Yadav was 8238 whereas Roll No. of Dheeraj Kumar Loi was 7907. Both of them were declared successful in those two subjects but in llnd Semester of first year, Mahendra Kumar was failed in two subjects of theory and Dheeraj Kumar was failed in two subjects of theory and one subject of practteal. Thereafter, in Supplementary, Mahendra Kumar declared pass in those two subjects but it appears that Dheeraj Kumar did not appear in theory examination in one subject, however, for the next year i.e. in Ist Semester of second year Mahendra Kumar declared pass in all the subjects but Dheeraj Kumar could not passed as he declared fail in three subjects of theory. 4. In case of Mahendra Kumar Yadav, admit card was given for llnd Semester 6f first year but for the repeated subjects nothing was mentioned therein regarding Ist Semester as Mahendra Kumar was declared pass after revaluation and he was allowed to repeat only two subjects in which he qualifled. In the second year admit card, he was allowed to repeat two subjects of llnd Semester of first year. Therefore, due to the actions of the respondent authorities in case of Mahendra Kumar Yadav, it is clear that he was allowed to appear in two subjects of Ist Semester of first year course and when in those two subjects one ofthose two subjects he coutd not qualified, revaluation was allowed and thereafter declared pass according to the formula, average of nearest two, as mentioned in the result sheet examination notification issued by the Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (CG), vide its endorsement No. W Exam/t 2007-08/1039-A, dated 02.08.2008. But now, vide impugned order, it has been mentioned that according to academic rule 13.04.A.4, he had to appear in al! the subjects. Further, he was allowed to appear in llnd Semester of first year and thereafter in second year also. In this regard, rule 13.04.A.7 is relevant which is reproduced as under: "13.04.A.7-A student of firsVsecond/third year class failing/dropped in SIX or less course at the end of the academic session, shall be placed on academic probation, and shall be permitted to register courses of next higher class. CThese modification will be applicable from the Academic Session 2006-07)." Y Therefore, treating him to be failed or dropped in six or less course, he was allowed in the next course i.e. second year course. Therefore, now, at this stage, the College or the University cannot be back to their actions. In case of Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, the Supreme Court in para 7 observed as under: "7. It appears from the averments made in the counter- affidavit that according to the procedure prevalent in the College the admission forms are fbrwarded by the Head of the Department in December preceding the year when the Examination is held. In the instant case the admission form of the appellant must have been forwarded in December 1971 whereas the examination was to take place in April/May 1972. It is obvious that during this period of four to five months it was the duty of the University authorities to scrutinise the form in order to find out whether it was in order. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the University to see that the form complied with all the requirements of law. If neither the Head of the Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinise the admission form, then the question of the appellant committing a fraud did not arise. It is well settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by one diligence, fraud is not proved. It was neither a case of suggestio falsi, or suppression veri. The appellant never wrote to the University authorities that he had attended the prescribed number of lectures. There was ample time and opportun'rty for the University authorities to have found out the defect. In these circumstances, therefore, if the University authorities acquiesced in the 'AIR 1976 SC 376 rf-''-;3:'?;'?-^,.. -^•-^1";: r^- 4^ V liE.s,,,,. ^N^li ^ "'"••sitite1 '""la^2^:^§; infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the appellant to appear in Part 1 Examination in April 1972, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant. A somewhat similar situation arose in Premji Bhai Ganesh Bhai Kshatriya v.Vice- Chancellor, Ravishankar University, Raipur AIR 1967 Madh Pra 194 at p. 197 where a Division Bench ofthe High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed as follows: "From the provisions of ordinances Nos.19 and 48 it is clear that the scrutiny as to the requisite attendance of the candidates is required to be made before the admission cards are issued. Once the admission cards are issued permftting the candidates to take their examinaUon, there is no provision in Ordinance No. 19 or ordinance No. 48 which would enable the Vice-Chancellor to withdraw the permission. The discretion having been cleariy exercised in favour of the petitioner by permitting him to appear at the examination, it was not open to the Vice-Chancellor to wthdraw that permission subsequently and to withhold his result." We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasons given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the view of law taken by the learned Judges. In these circumstances, therefore, once the appellant was allowed to appear at the Examination in May 1973, the respondent had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination. This was not a case where on the undertaking given by a candidate for fulfilment of a specified condition a provisional admission was given by the University to appear at the examination which could be withdrawn at any moment on the non- fulfilment of the aforesaid condition. If this was the situation then the candidate himself would have contracted out of the statute which was for his benefit and the statute therefore would not have stood in the way of the University authorities in cancelling the candidature of the appellant." \u0 7. However, with regard to Dheeraj Kumar Loi, we have found that he did not appear in all the subjects in l!nd Semester of first year and also failed in second year, and therefore, we are no inclined to grant any relief to him regarding taking admission in third year. 8. In the resutt, we allow Writ Petition (C) No. 1227/10 and directed that the petitioner Mahendra Kumar Yadav shafl be given admission in third year course. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case we dismissWrit Petition (C) No. 2225/10. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge /• Ss,hll B!i!a!i!!igt'r' gl»'ii811i <