IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1933 of 2008 BINITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 17/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. The petitioner is stated to have been a student of B.Sc. (Hon’s) in Computer Science at the Sundarbati Mahila College, Bhagalpur under the respondent University. It is her case that she appeared at the part-1 examination and cleared the same successfully. She went on to complete the second year course also successfully. Thereafter, she appeared at the part-3 examination held in the year-2004 and cleared the same also, but that the mark-sheet was not being issued to her. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent University. Paragraphs-5 and 6 of the same read together reveal the stand of the respondents. After the petitioner had cleared the 1st year examination in the year-2002 and the second year examination in March, 2003, the respondents in April, 2003 discovered that the petitioner had been declared passed in the 1st year examination by granting her two 2 grace marks in the subject of computer applications which was not permissible. It was an error on part of the University in having done so. The grace marks have now been deducted and for that reason the mark-sheet of the 3rd year examination was not being issued. On facts it is the admission of the respondents that the petitioner has successfully completed the entire course. Even as per the respondents they discovered the alleged deficiency in April, 2003, but nonetheless allowed the petitioner to continue with the three-year course, complete the same and appear at the final examination. The petitioner, as noticed above, has successfully cleared the 1st and 2nd year examination of the three-year course. This Court holds that, at this belated stage, to uphold the objections of the respondents shall be doing gross injustice to the petitioner for what may be described as the fault of the respondents themselves where questions of academic careers are concerned, unless there be compelling reasons to interfere. This Court shall not be inclined to lightly interfere with the academic achievements of a student, especially when there are no allegations of any misdemeanours or wrong practices adopted by the candidate at the examination to achieve the success. All that the respondents have 3 urged is that the petitioner was given grace marks by two numbers, which helped her clear the 1st year examination wrongly. The amount of the grace marks required by the petitioner, is an aspect to be appropriately considered along with the passage of time and the tacit approval of the university authorities given to the petitioner for completing the course. This Court, in the circumstances, can do no better than to refer to the judgement of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 376 (Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra). That was also a case where the publication of the results were sought to be withheld after the candidate had been allowed to participate in the examination. The defence was that the permission had been granted wrongly. The Apex Court in the relevant extract at paragraph-6 and 7 held as follows:- “6. …..It is, therefore, manifest that once the appellant was allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the university to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the applicant permission to appear...” “7….. There was ample time and opportunity for the university authorities to have found out the defect. In these circumstances, therefore, if the university authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and 4 allowed the applicant to appear in part-1 examination in Apri,1972, then by force of the university statute the university had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant.” For reasons of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no reason to decline relief to the petitioner. The respondent University is directed to issue the 3rd year mark-sheet of the petitioner within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)