IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3794 of 2010 1. SANJEEV KAPOOR S/O LATE VISHWANATH MISHRA R/O MOH SAKETPURI BAJAR SAMITI,RAJENDRA NAGAR,P.S.BAHADRUPUR,DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHANCELLOR OF BIHAR ,NALANDA OPEN UNIVERSITY PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF NALANDA OPEN UNIVERSITY PATNA 5. THE REGISTRAR(EXAMINATION) NALANDA OPEN UNIVERSITY PATNA 3RD FLOOR,BISCOMAN BHAWAN,PATNA 6. THE SECRETARY NALANDA OPEN UNIVERSITY PATNA 3RD FLOOR,BISCOMAN BHAWAN,PATNA 7. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY NALANDA OPEN UNIVERSITY PATNA 3RD FLOOR,BISCOMAN BHAWAN,PATNA 8. THE ASSISTANT ,EXAMINATION DEPARTMENT NALANDA OPEN UNIVERSITY PATNA 3RD FLOOR,BISCOMAN BHAWAN,PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Meera Kumari, Adv. For the University:- Mr.V.B. Amsastha, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Lalan Kumar, Adv. --------------- 4. 12.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent Nalanda Open University. The matters appear to be purely administrative in nature with the University taking the stand that had the petitioner informed them on facts, they would have considered matters appropriately. The petitioner contends that he had informed the University. Be that as it may, the University is now fully aware of all facts from the pleadings in the writ application and yet contests the matter. The petitioner is a student of the course of Bachelor of Library & Information Science (hereinafter 2 referred to as the BLIS course). The course consists of nine papers. Seven papers are of theory, and two papers are practicals followed by written examination and Home assignment. Item 55 of the Regulation dealing with BLIS course stipulates pass marks as 33% to be in each individual paper. It then goes on to say that if a candidate has failed to appear in any paper he shall be deemed to have failed in that paper. Failure in one paper would mean failure in the entire examination. In view of the election programme announced for the Lok Sabha election in between 16.4.2009 to 16.5.2009, the University decided to relax the aforesaid condition of the regulations notifying that those whose duties fall in that period for election, it shall hold a special examination for them. The trouble of the petitioner started thereafter. The petitioner is stated to have cleared eight of the nine papers when he appeared at the scheduled examination. He was assigned election duties in between 5.5.2009 to 7.5.2009 as apparent from the order of appointment at Annexure-3. He therefore could not appear in one paper. Shorn of unnecessary details , the fact of the matter is that the University required him to reappear in all the nine papers on one plea or the other. The petitioner filled up the forms but appeared in only that one paper for which he could not appear on the 3 earlier occasion due to engagement in the elections. The University even while passing him in the ninth paper has declared him fail for having failed to reappear in the other eight papers. The regulations are specific. If the petitioner did not appear in the 9th paper at the first stage, the respondent University was competent to declare him fail in accordance with the regulation. Once the University decide to relax the regulation itself and assume a deemed state of affairs, imaginary not real, permitting the petitioner to reappear in that one paper in which he could not appear because of the Lok Sabha Election with a consequent decision not to deem him as a failed candidate, that fiction created by the University shall have to be carried to its logical end deeming him to be a candidate who appeared at all papers in the first exam itself. This Court holds that in accordance with the relaxation made by the University itself, the petitioner was required to appear in the one paper only. If the petitioner has cleared all the nine papers by now whether he cleared eight papers at one stage and one paper at a subsequent stage is hardly relevant. Once the University decided to relax the regulation, the relaxation has to be taken to its logical end. If the petitioner has secured more than 33% marks in all the nine papers, the University is 4 obliged to publish his results. Let the same be done in accordance with law within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)