IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10213 of 2011 1. Jyoti Kumari DAUGHTER OF SHRI RAMESHWAR RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MASAHNI, P.O. MANDAL, P.S. MANDAL, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. 2. PAMMI KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHRI RAM BABU SINGH RESIDENT OF SINGHWAHINI, P.S. SONBARSA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. 3. GINNI KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SHRI RAM BABU SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SINGHWAHINI, P.S. SONBARSA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. 4. CHANDAN KUMAR SINGH SON OF SHRI HARI SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHIRAIYA BARAHNI, P.S. PURNAHIYA, SHEOHAR Versus 1. The B.R.AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, B.R. AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE REGISTRAR, B.R.AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, B.R.AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, P.R.R.D. COLLEGE, BAIRGANIYA, SITAMARHI. 6. THE PRINCIPAL, S.L. K. COLLEGE, SITAMARHI. ----------- 2 04/07/2011 Compassion does have a play in the dispensation of justice but it cannot be at the cost of over riding rules and regulations which govern the issue. The petitioners are a set of students who were given admission by an affiliated College, known as P.R.R.D. College, Bairganiya in the district of Sitamarhi. Their claim is that they were bona fide students duly - 2 - enrolled by the College after submission of their form and fees and were even pursuing their studies but when it came down to sit for B.A. Part I examination in the two subjects of which these petitioners are students, they have been denied permission by the University to do so. The so called entry ticket/hall ticket for sitting in the examination was never issued to these petitioners. College in question tried to prevail upon the Centre where the examination was to be conducted but that examination centre refused to co-operate with them and left with no option, the petitioners decided to knock the door at the High Court. One of the earnest pleas made at the Bar is that the Court should consider future of these students because it cannot be jeopardized by such conduct of the University. In the counter affidavit, the stand of the University is that none of these petitioners are bona fide students of the College in the eye of law. The College in question has been permitted to take admission to a limit and number of students are fixed but the affiliated college in question, like many others of such kind, insist - 3 - of carrying extra load by giving admission beyond the number of seats available in the subject. They tried to smuggle such students even in the examination hall even though the University did not recognize them or register them to be the students under the University. This is what has transpired in the present case. A communication made to the College by the University under the signature of the Controller of Examination indicates that the University has no responsibility to acknowledge or conduct examination for such people who were not bona fidely enrolled in the college to the limited number of seats accorded or indicated to the college in question. It is not a case where Hall tickets have not been issued to all the students. People who had been given admission in terms of the norms have been allowed to sit in the examination but it is these students who have been barred. But then that by itself will not compel the Court to give any direction because these students never had a future in the manner they gained entry in the college by way of admission. The petitioners may have remedy of suing the - 4 - college in question for appropriate damages or taking such action against them for duping them but the Court cannot help them beyond the point in view of the materials which have been indicated by the University in question. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)