» w H , <s 10 Tlf' •<' M M ~) Q lil v. w 03 -i n 1-- -3 • i-J 5 3; B' 3 • u s o V LQ .- e =r i-i i 'n n o -s u n -" rt' ci n n 1-i '•3 U 3) D- -•' c: U) rt- ID no 1-- (p I.Q (C c y i-t c: o" .1.- 1-j ' C- Q B I; 1-U3 I- ;3" •^ rt m y C I'D H C. 7. (B B U3 }~t~ a -. 1-t :S 1-! CB ID — 1-j 1•••J^u t-1o »&!> u Z! h-3 Sl' ff U (Tl rt (^ t.0 H 01. l^- a' <; ua (D U l-i ^ u h-" .rt '< o 1-tl tflc^l & <1 Bi 3 ;» 3 0 tt L1 ai y: (ii cr n- 1-'- M V h B) V W O rt- 3:1 ti c ni 1-i 3- f+ 'fl a) S a- o — t <s ^ '"i a> a it OT ff tf n (B »• o o- Ml U Pl (D' rt- RI o n' &, 1-1 p- C (O 1)1 o n- a [U U B) r-f h h P-i^ O- o 3 B) i-3 G p- v e h-' h h a> c c m c 'a ic (T: c s- &• h a 1- U .—s-1-- n (t a, a O :0 u • (t •'-- LG t: h- 3 U 1-" ( 'S) h it ii; n t~< U p. tt^ T) !D 1-1- p- r1- p. o y (O h i-0 U 3 t-< O 0 fi y} I-'- 3) CU "^. &) LQ ^ 1-->'< M O [:: d) ai o) g .a a ui ui f-f hi- ^ ^r &i l:i »-' il) rt 0) 3 CT' 3 ID tf t-i. i-l ;l) c si) h o c 3 3 1'-' C: ?)" a. CL O rt ri- '~i M 2; i-t) n) [U fll " hO Cl 3 h O --] W (« • p- •3 P- Ot< oi h- a • ai i; S, 'a &] SD O 1-i M 6) 21' w ^, ^ -t. ss^ M 0o Kl ^;' s,3i33A 3i[o siqj, -asjnoo ujsuBd1 g+g+oTJ sip. jo 33j33p aqi AqA si ^Brp. 'aoaapgl 'os'ais6d -resA aao psssBd SBq jsaoFtp.^i Aq SOOS'T'OT "o psnssi: SBAI ^oaga ^rp pres 3ip. -i.no p3ssi3d sqs ai3q/d (p3§Ti; 3T[1 Ut 30U3pg UI SSJTtOQ p3};U3U:0 Tti aoissroipB i.og sqs '.<lTS.i3Anifi, BnnoiB^) uoissiuipB joj s3[jeiii §TTCA)T{Bnb psjinbai ^sjnoo sjnoTioq -og-gjBSA pnooas SuiistF aq-}. iti asjnoo sjnouoq I-1JBJ 'os'9 'aT {ooqog ArepHooss .loiTtss Z+OT 3Til 3^.^S 3IO TCI aoiiBonpa jaq pisq aqs iBip. •311 t 'oN^aspaodsay aip.jo uoisiosp SIR giiin^1 ASS/9ZS 3IOIIJV -cspun aop.psd ^UM STlp •^ IIOT3ST •SWOOApV 'BAK).S13AUqs feipJ^J •SfBOOApY '^UBj[([ s^BOOApv AtndsQ 'AaqnQ .^treqsBqs T^ •SlBOOApV 'BAHlSBAUqg BJpTETa^] 'aiBOOApv 'Aaqnd tlP-jte^. M&fcjl g,'*). ^JBWI. l.jbBjWlfc o^ iu:3tBATnba 3iiTB03o^ jauop.p.ad TII asjnoQ ga^uauQ uoi^'eoi[ddv [d sip sy •AtisjaATTin ireAt.p.ing 3ip pl 31B3gT(J:30 Siq pUB TIOTlBTIIIIIBXa (g isa/ft) ue.ap.m.g jo Ais-i3ATun at)Tii30T(ddv 'os'9 isoj .183^ stiQ Tit uortBTiiurcxs HI-VBJ 'og'g ui Ipsjnoss ^oa SntABq jsuoi^p.sd au^ )]ftVOL03 jaijv 'BunaiBO jo ^ls.iSATaft rt^siuipB i.o§jgaop.q.sS 'aoTi.BuiLuexg iiiissBd jaye '^B§TE3g IS3/& jo ii jsaopTisd 3tp. jo SSBO aqj, iogT(J30 ;4T[iqT8i[3 snssi o^ Sliisnj3,i [i^ftsanb Bipai jo aoiiTqnsuoy stpjo (33JJ:3jaid. SBq JSaOTlTtsd 3qj, •pJB3]-i aqg Aq 7 'ON luapuodssy ABOIA Aq g'o^[ ^uapupdsay •P3J3H30 .<q g'oy ^uspuodssy jyi/uqS Aq T'OMlttapaodsay 1(1 d33pUBg VTE[S Aq J3TIOT^Tt3cI flqs ^OOS'c-ST T'fippBqg •o ^ aoiisnp siq^aoH 13 •F'O-g^f 'rappTUTptBj aop.snp S^HOH Tga &Sj»vteiuta asy» .fi><)-y 'ls' ........................... - 'l'?ht&lut*l*t ~z(y^^9^l4^ >Ti«(»(»j'SltRp.®'bBlblb- te£ ^L •fh- &»]»tbtklB iv^iui tb^i-y BfeI^US ZZ-3H-K T XI-HC-22 ad^i'qii f<;-t snlsi sbtfiqi «Ii<i '3^ ^W[I?PI, si-nlwis, {q«),'ay 31@®r/x^^ )T--6^<To'2- Ht*«tlSbHiqi ""H^ 200 te^T" <tit^l ^^fl|8ER'^f^T -7-. abd adiaitted fav^ur course was recogiuzed by fhe Benaal aiid fhe Union of ladia P/2, aad farfher tb.e respondei( certificate Annexure P/3 and strengfh of fhese certificates fhe| (Previous) Bofany in C.M.I^ college/Respondent No.5 Theteaftet the petitioner uiade eligibilitv certificate io. her passed Uie M.Sc.(Previous) io. tli|( Respondent No.l wrote a letter] el^ibility certi&cate caanot b^ submitted a representation Anne^ It has been prayed by the ^ dirccted to issueeligibitity certifij to her. Even ia accordance witl. Adhiniyam., 1973 fhe Respohdeii|t adniissions belonging to ofh.er wtio after haviag obtauied Bat Uiiiversily or of any Statutoi^ examiaation recogruzed by the be adinitted to the regular'c^ Departmient or aa Institute/ Col^e purpose. By no.t- recognizm.| Universily fhe respondent No. 1 'tiWiri'il-f •4W<"if^'fe^ <(<n<$i< •^? SlfW? atAv Ui]d.versity Graat Conumission, State ofWest the certificate to fhis effect is Aruiexure |.t No.3 i.e. Burdwaa Uruversity issued a |the mark sheet Axmexure P/4. On the petitioner applied for admission in. M.Sc. : College, Bflaspiu: aild fhe said • fhe petitioner ia tlie saM course. s request to- fhe University for grant of aa ; and. in the ineantime fhe petitk)llfir ? month of May-Juae 2002. However, fhe Annexure P/8 to fbe petitioner.that the^ gianted; agamst which the petitioner^ ^ure P/9. ^ |>etitioiier that iffhe respondent No.l is not^ }:ate ttien an irreparable toss will be caused ?| fhe Section .6 of fhe M.P. Vishvidyalaya. )t No.l has framed its Ordiaaace regulatmg ^ tduversities according io which a candidate^ ;helors Degree ia aiiy disciplmc of the ; Urdversrty in India or an. equivalent': IJtiwersity for fhe purpose shall be eligible to^ |arse of study tu a University Teachiugi,, ;ge recognized by the Universily for fhe s the degree obtairied- fi-oin the Burdwan acted ia excess ofjurisdictton whereas,; lias N ,(t-^:^^ XI-HC-22 sn^i^ii R-liib 3i1^T ?ti^icn •<E)lid f5 '3^'-i<l'i<li*l<<,»'a)'y*ts,h<'!ras< sn^rJ^^ \~:KoTtf-l l.'rv- *iiti<'iiaiw<»i"""""""" ^I. 200 •Iq^F' sf^S ^tfW^lfet — 3, isaue Univtrsitv fhe Respondent No.l ought to ha^ U.G.C. for adjudication. Ultimatelt No.l Uiiiversity be directed to is^u im.pugned decision of the respondent No. 1 to recogAize fh^ B.Sc, Degree. I Retum has been filed on b| Iias toeen stated tfaat' fhe (Previous) was given by fhe C.M.. fhe io.structions issued by fhe havuig obtamed fhe eligibility certificate was inade ahaost afiterlt processed and after due Calcutta Universily and after Acadeinic Council it has been fd petifioner ia other University cac|n system. The petitioner after pas^: Uiuversity did not take admissioiil Post B.Sc. AppUcation Oriented 0} that after com.pletingsaid coursel| not correct. The C.M.D. Post Gnl grant of eligibility certificate befol'e without feUowing that proceduTe; the University guidglines. The Uiiiversity from. where it is iafona^d adiaislsion Urjiversit^'' certificate. considedation takjb 'adn. •tiwici'n'i ^i*idf'^iBIs <R|'^;|< • ^T SlPdH 311^1 e.referred the case offhe petitioner to fhe f, it has been prayed ffaat fhe respondent eUgibilily certificate and to quash fhe Annexure P/8 and to direct fhe petitioner^s degree as equivalent to fhe ihalf of tbe' Respondent No. 1 ia wfaich it sought by fhe petitioner m. M.Sc. D. CoIlege/Respondent No.5 coatraiy to iversity both geueral and specialwifhoyt :. The application to issue eUgibility four m.onfhs ofgetting admission. It was aad after correspondence wifh the hg iato consideration fhe decision of the ^ujld that .th.e course undergone by the taot be treated equivalent to 10 + 2+3 'iag the B.Sc. Part-II froin the Calcutta ia ,B.Sc. Part-III rather she did One Year kurse ia science and the petitioner's claiin ,she has becoiue equivalent to 10+2+3 is Ldiiate CoUege ought to have appUed for giviag adinissioa to fhe petitioaer but lthe petitibner was'adfiiitfed contrary to iversity also enquired froin fhe Calcutta that in such cases fhe students are not U4iversity ^. / "»~ XI-HC-22 's^ •^lWld'?), ®tt1'yi6;Jii<al'yy 3TT^?T i^l^ 1 ~? 6 ^/2-0T3T- "^I. 200 t|]*ICTI thHW |c|-bi{<T" sn^r^i R'li.'tl 311^1 sniiqi'HlCT z?k ^n^ ?^tHW:^rfi^ zf- couilsel prescnljed elilan treated eligible for adinission to ftuidamental r^hts of the petiticj petitioner be disinissed. We have heard leamed Leamed counsel for^fhe il Grarits Coinniission has second proviso to norra 8.2 envis| the universities are unable to they may award a B.A./B.Sc. corupletion of two year course, b^ eligible for admission to the Ms fttrther one year bridge course course after 10+2 stage should iri (Pass) degree." Therefoic, ia view of fhe; CommissiQn fhe petitioner after the Calcutta Uruversity, took Oriented Course in. Science aadfl course. Therefore as per the have graiited the el^ibflily certiE|i tbat the petitioner was given acfl M.Sc. (Previous), aad now under ab-eady appeared iu M.Sc. (Final)] has not sought anvadiuission on. i Pbst Gradyate course ofthe University. No (jner is infringed aad the petitidn of the ^t<il<n141i +fi^cff^1^</t ip>i^t< % S<Sw 3^1 for the parties. ||>etitioner submitted that the University \ fhe nonns regardittg Adnussion. The is|aged fhat "as a traasitoiy ineasure where ^ :li|ange over to a three year degrce course, f 1/B.Coia. (Pass) degree ou Successful ^ itt 'fhat no student of this stream shaU be 'j tsters course unless he has undergone ajjld pass the same. The fhree year degree ^ ^,;.;.. u); no case be term.s as B.A./B.Sc./B.Coin.|ai sy® above norrus of the University Grant p^ssing the B.Sc.Part-II examiiiation ftoui adnj|ission ia One Year Post B.Sc. Application thus she has passed one year's bridge abojye norms the Respondent No.l ought to ;ate to the petitioner. He further argued ad|mission by the Respondent No,5 ia fhe PIC orders offhis Court the petitkiner has |examiaation aad more over fhe petitioner laiiv forged or fake certifieate. -[q®-^gB»r XI-HC-22 311^(^1 f<-ii<* SII^T ^)^ ^fl^tf 'T"? 'tfww^, ®Ttl'H'i<»,IWaiuy snip?r 'q?^? \~t-&tt]^-<ro-i^ "^f, 200 flfWfr a>«iq) ^^fS' STf^" ^^tTf^K ^ff^ff — .S— beti nfot Learued counsel further proviso pf nonn 8.2 extracted directed to giairt the eli^ibility (Previous) aad M.Sc. (Fiaal) othej be' ia jeopardy, without fhere wiU go in waste. On the other haad Shri respondent No. 1 argued that adniission in B.Sc. Honours ia Q Part-II examiaatioa, however examuiation fhe petitioner 'toolsj Burdwan Uiiiversity which has University aad that bridge cour^e till the Universitv switehes ovd petitioner is not entitled to the We have considered the rf parties. It is adniitted position Part-II examiaation j6-oin fh^ course from Burdwan Universily| ofthe Universitv Graat? Coxruni^ any candidate after passiag B.^i year bridge course fhen she or; M.Sc. It is true that as per ttie ( they have not recogriized fhis coj Academic Council Aruiexure R- ^rgued fhat havin^ regard to the second ^bove, the respondent No. 1 Universily be tertificate aad declare fhe result of M.Sc. (-wise the whole career ofthe petitionerwin ig aay fault on her part aad her this year ^i^ferflF^ W*f^^ fe^ <T'»tt$t< ^? SlptTO SIRSt ffaaiadra Shrivastava, leamed counsel fbi^ |n fhe first iastance the petitioner took ^ ; Cpalcutta University and passed up to B.Sc. < wipiout passiag fhe B,Sc. Part-III Hoaours adinission iu one year bridge course ia been recognized by fhe Respondeiit No. 1 '^ was iatroduced as a traasifory ineasure ^' iv^- to 10+2+3 year course. Therefore, the ? reliefasked for. "• |val ai^unieuts of leamed counsel for the ^ (faat the petitioner after passing fhe B.Sc. C^lcutta University passed one year bridge |and as perthe secoad proviso ofnorm 8.2 isio'n ia order to coiaplete the defiGiency if |G. Part-II examination, can coinplete oue Ihe shaU be enfifled for admission to fhe {\cadeiiuc Coiuicil of the Respondeat No.l tirse but if we look iato fhe decision of the fl/5 submitted by the Respondent No.l on XI-HC-22 '3^? -<inm% 9Ti)wis, !««?ri'Hli< aBl^?t'^I f^Tii<ft -<»i^w stt*llch •Ml^fl an^r'<ra^ l^-6^/ -2-.'<?o-L- *<1«4CTI g,^jq,—••—•—••—•f———-——g^ ^OO "Iq^r" 311^1 ?!RIIW(lfci 6- Itein No.5 at page 18, fhe Urtn bridge course ia order to over c petitioner. However, soinehow t4atcouldnot be nnpleinented. Therefore, in our considered opinioa in any cs totally iaeligible to seek admirssic ffaat the Respondent No. 1 hsjd not recognized fhis course and the petitioners case was not that witjioiit aay foundation she took admission in M.Sc.(Previous). Even fheAcade4iic Cotuicil .of fhe Respondent No.l had to consider whefher the degree considered fit for admission to; Acaderaic council had also decid the circuinsfaiices fh.e petitionc Respondent No.S considenng fl: her adinission and later on the Examination also; and zinder thj petitioner, aad to ineet the ends to direct fhe Respondent No.l special case without treating it ai be put to great hardship aad-he <f»Wf<-l<il-< HWcii'S'fS^tIq^n •^3iP<n<ffiS:g ^ersity had also decided to uitroduce the bm.e the .difficult\r of the students Eke fhe se it is not a case where the petitionerwas in iaM.Sc. (Previous) but the fact reinams obtained by fhe petitioner should Tae ; fhe M.Sc.(Previous) or not aad even the : e to uitroduce such. a course; therefore, in| ;r's case is genuine one. More over, the-i " e petftioiier's certificates and degree gave 7 , petitioner appeared in fhe M.Sc.(Previous) . ; orders ofthis Court she appeared ui.flie ; M.Sc.(Fiaal) Exanunation, fhere^re, we are of fhe cousidered opinion that in vievv of the above peculiar f^cts and circuinstances of fhe case of the ! ofjustice it would be just and appropriate ^ to declare fhe result of fhe petidoner of.| M.Sc.( Previous) and M.Sc, (F^ial) aad grant el^ibility certi&cate as a ; s a preceden.t. Oftierwise the petitioner wffl r whole career will be in jeopardy wifhout aay fault on her part. After ^tting ffae adnussion she persuaded her - studies as abonafide student. H^d the petitioner was infonned at the nutial^ stage thatshe is not eligible as t]ie degree obtamed by her is not recognized ^ XI-HC-22 'g^? •<)I<IKI<I, afll'y'ia, f'K'xoy 31li[?T 'q=R; \'^^'W •2.av-i_"^ 200 *<i<ini aiii'ft IN^T' an^I'^1 h-Ufh 3D§5I Stl+llqi ^^ l.^.itv-.^ ^rf ^ ^11^1 ^•W1<3T ^l!^<T -^ by the Respondent No.l, shi adinissible to her, but she b( Respondent No.5 as such now opinion wUl be a great iajustice Haviag considered fhe- f declare fhe result of the petitiil Examiaation. However, fhiswill ^i^ifei^i*T 'Rrq^'^1^1^ -(.FflttcK ^-SlpOT 311^1 could have adopted ofher course as ina&dely acted upon fhe decision of fhe denyiag fhe fi-uits ,to fhe petitioner ia our o her. . icts and circuBistaaces of fhe case the Respondent No. 1 Universily is ^iTected to issue eli^ibility certi&cate and to iner of M.Sc.(Previous) aad M.Sc. (Final)j oiot be treafed as precedent. •: With fhe abdve observatioji this petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per Rule^ -K^ •• - Sd/- Acting ChiefJustice Sd/- LC.Bhadpo judge ^ ^^ ^o^ <r ^