IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9838 of 2003 ANIL KUMAR TIWARI, son of Sri Alakhdeo Tiwari, at present resident of C/0-Sri R.N.Tiwari, Nala Road, P.O. Kadamkuan, P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chancellor, Universities of the Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, The Governor’s Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 4. Under Secretary to the Governor, Bihar, Patna 5. Tilaka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur through its Registrar, Bhagalpur 6. Vice-Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur … Respondents. ----------- 4. 8.1.2010 Heard Mr. Mukul Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner as also the counsel for the University. The prayer in this writ application of the petitioner reads as follows: “This is an application challenging order passed by respondent no.2 the Chancellor Universities of Bihar, as contained in Memo dated 1.9.2003 by which respondent no.2 has been pleased to cancel the marksheet issued to the petitioner giving revised marks in Paper-III of M.A. (English) after holding a special/ re-examination and consequently has also been pleased to set aside the result of the petitioner which had declared him to have passed the M.A. English examination on the basis the said special/ re- 2 examination marksheet. Further, a direction has been given to respondent No. 5 and 6 the university to issue appropriate order in this regard.” The petitioner, who had already appeared in M.A. examination of Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, hereinafter referred to as the University the year 1989 and was placed in 3rd Class at the relevant point of time in the year 1991 had allegedly sought re-evaluation of three of answer papers by depositing Rs. 300/- being the preswcribed fee for re-evaluation but for one reason or another his only two papers were re- evaluated in 1991 in which his marks did not increase so as to change his 3rd Class M.A. The petitioner thereafter did not take any action except that he claims that he had kept on filing representation and having waited for 12 years for such re-evaluation only when Mr. Ramashray Yadav became the Vice Chancellor of the University in the year 2003 the petitioner had made another representation that something should be done to redeem his career, inasmuch as his result 3 of M.A. (English) being in 3rd class his employment in University in Tribhuwan University at Birganj, Nepal was at stake requiring him to possess a 2nd class in M.A. examination. On this representation the Vice Chancellor on his own on 17.4.2003 had passed an order for holding a special examination of only one paper for the petitioner only. Subsequently the special examination confined to the petitioner was said to be held for Paper III of M.A. examination in which and the petitioner was shown to have obtained 55 marks in place of his earlier marks of 41 and on that basis he was placed in 2nd Class of his M.A. examination result of the year 1991. This Court would fail to understand as to how and under which power the Vice Chancellor had the authorizing to pass the order on 17.4.2003 for holding a special examination. The plea of Mr. Mukul Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner that on 23.4.2003 the Examination Board had given the post facto approval to the decision of the Vice Chancellor has in fact been dealt 4 by the learned Chancellor in the impugned order in the following manner: “ As can be seen therefrom, the power of the Examination Board is only to advice the Vice Chancellor as regards the method and procedure of conducting the examination. The power to decide as to whether a special examination should be conducted or not does not fall within the power of the Examination Board. Further, it should be pointed out that in this case there was no decision of the Examination Board to hold a special examination in one paper in respect of Sri Tiwari after more than twelve years after his previous appearance. Without that examination was held for one individual in one paper after twelve years and the corrected marks card was issued and entry was made in the marks card as having passed in second class, on 23.4.2003. It is thereafter as an after thought and a cover up, an approval was obtained from the examination board on 16.5.2003 of which the Vice Chancellor himself is the Chairman.” This Court in fact, therefore, 5 would find that the finding of the learned Chancellor with regard to the aforementioned exercise of power by the Vice Chancellor to the following extent: “To say the least, the action of the Vice Chancellor in holding a special examination for one candidate in one paper after more than 12 years in an instance of blatant abuse of power and declaring that he had passed in second class as against the result declared before 12 years that he had passed in third class, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unheard of in the annals of the University Examinations.” does not require any interference by this Court. In the opinion of this Court the entire matter has been beautifully summed up by the learned Chancellor in his impugned order wherein he has given the following reasons in support of his order impugned in this writ petition “those who indulge in acts of illegality (Adharma) may get immediate success or benefit, but ultimately they will be ruined to the root.” Possibly this Court could not have agreed 6 more to the applicability of Sanskrit sholka quoted by Mr. Rama Jois, the then Chancellor, a former Chief Justice. In fact in his euridite scholarly well scripted 12 pages of the order he has left nothing for speculation that it was by way of flagrant violation of the University Laws by which the petitioner had been bestowed the benefit of the special examination of Master of Arts for one paper in the subject of English despite being no such power vested in the Vice Chancellor under the Bihar State Universities Act authorizing the Vice Chancellor to direct for holding such a special examination. As a matter of fact this Court had at one stage intended to also initiate proceeding for abuse of such power against the then Vice Chancellor Mr. Ramashray Yadav, but taking into account that he has already retired from service, this Court would not like now to take any action against him though this was a fit case where he ought to have been subjected to disciplinary proceeding as also criminal 7 prosecution for abuse of his official power and function. That being so, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order of the Hon’ble Chancellor and accordingly, this application must be and is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/