IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. University of Rajasthan & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1586/2006) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: November 17, 2008 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Anil Upman, for the petitioner. Mr. N.K.Sharma, for respondents. BY THE COURT: The petitioner has challenged the omission on the part of respondents in not declaring his result of M.A. Final Year 2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner appeared as a regular student in the Examination of M.A. (Previous) English, 2003. On June 17, 2003 the result was declared. The petitioner was declared as having passed the examination. He had secured 211 marks out of 400 marks. Being dissatisfied with the marks obtained, the petitioner applied for revaluation of marks. On December 8, 2003 the result of revaluation was declared. The petitioner got 201 marks out of 400 marks. Vide certificate dated December 17, 2003 the petitioner was declared as having passed M.A. (Previous) English,2003. Thereafter the petitioner appeared in M.A. (Final) English,2005. The result of M.A. (Final) English, 2005 was published in daily news paper “Rajasthan Patrika” on June 12, 2005. But the result of the petitioner was withheld. Vide letter dated 15-7-2005 the petitioner was informed that his mark sheet of M.A. (Previous) is not correct. According to TR and record of the University, the petitioner had failed in M.A. (Previous) English Examination. Thus, he was not entitled to appear in the examination of M.A. Final. The petitioner was directed to submit the original mark sheet of M.A. (Previous) Examination. In response, the petitioner deposited the original mark sheet. The petitioner made many efforts in respect of his grievance, but no heed has been paid by the respondents. Hence, this petition. 3. Mr.Anil Upman, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the petitioner had appeared in M.A. (Previous) English Examination 2003. He had passed the said examination. After completing the entire course study of M.A. (Final), the petitioner sat for M.A. (Final) Year Examination on March 31, 2005. In fact, it is the respondent, who permitted the petitioner to appear in the said examination. However, when the result of other candidates was declared on June 12, 2005, the respondents did not declare the petitioner's result. Upon enquiry, the petitioner was asked to submit the original marks-sheet of M.A. (Previous) Examination. Since the petitioner had already submitted the marks-sheet of M.A. Previous, therefore, he was not in a position to re-submit the said marks-sheet. However, for the reasons best known to University, the University has refused to declare the result of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents, Mr. N.K. Sharma contended that after the result of M.A. Previous was declared, it was discovered that there were errors in the result. After the error was learnt, the result was re-assessed. Upon re- assessment, it was noticed that the petitioner did not pass his M.A. (Previous) Examination. Hence, the respondents were justified in not declaring the petitioner's result for M.A. (Final) Examination. According to learned counsel for respondents, the University had informed the petitioner about the fact that he was ineligible to appear in the examination of M.A. (Final) Examination. 5. This court had directed the University to produce the result of the petitioner of M.A. (Final) Examination in a sealed covered envelope. The result has been produced before this court. 6. The stand taken by University is absolutely untenable for the following reasons:- The Universities and Colleges are public institutions, which are meant singularly for the welfare of students. Allegorically, they are not only custodians and guardians of the students, but also are the trustees of the welfare of the students. Thus, the Universities and Colleges are reposed with a great sense of responsibility towards their students. The function and purpose behind establishing the Universities is to protect and promote the interest of the students. Hence, the Universities and Colleges are accountable to the students for any illegal commission or unwanted omission on the part of the institution. In fact, it is the duty of the University to inform the student on every step about his status within the University. Moreover, every action of the University has to be fair, reasonable and just. Any action or omission, which is unfair, unreasonable or unjust, would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The procedure for admission, the procedure for permitting the student to sit in examination, the procedure for declaration of results would have to be, therefore, reasonable, fair and just. The Universities and Colleges cannot justify their omission on the ground that they are saddled with a large student population. Universities and Colleges cannot be permitted, under the constitutional mandate, to play havoc with the lives of the students. In case, the Universities and Colleges violate the rights of the students, their civil rights or fundamental rights, their action needs to be deprecated in the harshest terms. By imparting education the Universities and Colleges are not doing a charitable work. They are merely implementing the dream of the Constitution as embodied in its preamble. It is high time that Universities and Colleges realised their role as the harbinger constitutional philosophy, as a catalyst for social change, as temple of learning. The Universities can not, therefore, shrug off its responsibility in a cavelior manner. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination of M.A. Previous (English) in 2003. The University declared the result. The petitioner passed the same. After declaring the result, allegedly certain errors were discovered in the said examination. But, there is no evidence to prove the discovery of any error. Learned counsel for respondents has contended that many candidates scored same exact marks in a given paper. Therefore, this fact clearly proves that the result was erroneous. This contention of learned counsel for the respondent is devoid of merit. For, it is not unusual for many candidates to score exact marks in a given paper. Secondly, although the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination of MA (Final) Year, he was not informed about his ineligibility prior to sitting in examination on March 31, 2005. In fact, according to both the parties, the only letter sent to the petitioner by respondent was dated June 15, 2005 i.e. after three months after the petitioner had already sat in examination. The said letter has not even been sent by University to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no reason to allow the University to withhold the result of the petitioner. Thirdly, according to examination result produced before this court, this petitioner has already passed in MA (final) year. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the University is directed to declare the result of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition is hereby allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn GHAZALS Jagjit Singh 1. MIRAGE 2. CLASSICS COLLECTION {VOL.I} 3. MANY FACETS 4. SOMEONE SOMEWHERE 5. RISHTON MEIN DARAAR AAYEE (no-c) 6. THE UNFORGETABLE (J.S.&C.S.) 7. JAGJIT & CHITRA SINGH *1 8. JAGJIT SINGH & CHITRA SINGH 9. SILSILAY 10. PASSIONS 11. 12. JAGJIT SINGH {VOL.1} 12. JAGJIT SINGH {VOL.2} 13. HOPE 14. 1- LIVE WITH JAGJIT SINGH 15. 2- LIVE WITH JAGJIT SINGH 16. CRY FOR CRY