Mridula Prasad vs The Vice-Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga and Others

G.C. Bharuka, J.—The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner of B.Sc. (Botany Honours) 1989 as also to direct the Respondent no. 3, the Principal, G.D. College, Begusarai, to take her admission in M.Sc. for the Session 1989-91 and accept the fees and forms for the M.Sc. examination of 1991. The foundational facts, as set out by the petitioner in the writ application may briefly be stated. The father of the petitioner is employed in the Marketing division of Barauni Oil Refinery. Because of the transfer of her father to Begusarai in 1989, she was admitted, pursuant to an application filed by her, in Botany Honours course in G.D. College, Begusarai for the session 1988-89. It may be stated here that the petitioner had passed her B.Sc. (pass course) examination from Siliguri College of North Bengal University in the year 1988 in 1st division. This course was of two years. A copy of the mark-sheet of the said Examination has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. In August, 1991, the petitioner appeared in B.Sc. (Hons.) Botany of Lalit Narayan Mithila University (hereinafter to be referred to as the Mithila University). Though the result of the honours course was declared in November, 1991, but the result of the petitioner was not declared.

Admittedly for securing B.Sc. (Honours) degree the marks obtained in eight Papers in Botany have to be taken into account. Three papers having full marks of 300 are taught in B.Be. (Pass) course and after completion of Pass course, the student opting for honours has to undertake one year additional course comprised of five papers. In the present case the petitioner has passed the B.Sc. (Pass) course from North Bengal University. From the mark-sheet as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application granted by the aforesaid University it appears that in the North Bengal University in Pass Course apart from other subjects, there were altogether eight papers of Botany-Four theoretical and four practical having of 800 Full marks. Therefore, obviously the marks secured by the petitioner in North Bengal University in the Pass course can not be added to the marks secured by her in the one year''s honours course undertaken by her in Mithila University and unless the marks obtained in the pass course are added to the marks obtained in one year''s honours course, the candidate/student concerned can not be prima facie accorded the honours degree unless there is some special provision under the Regulation of the University to meet such a special situation.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents wherein reliance has been placed on the resolutions of the Bihar State Inter University Board constituted u/s 2 of the Bihar Inter University Board Act, 1981 (Bihar Act 27 of 1992) to counter the claims of the petitioner. The said resolution as contained in the communication of the Secretary of the Board vide Annexure A/1 to the Counter affidavit, which reads as under:

Resolved that the Inter University transfer of students belonging to 3 year degree (Pass & Honours) course be permitted within the Universities of the Bihar only.

The import of the said resolution is that there can not be any transfer of the students belonging to three years degree (Pass and honours) courses from the Universities of the other States to the Universities of Bihar. It appears that there is similar provision under Article 5 (ii) of the regulation relating to three years degree (Pass or honours) courses which have been framed u/s 39 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "University Act" only). It has also been averred in the counter affidavit that the Principal of the College (Respondent no. 3) has acted illegally in taking admission of the petitioner in the honours course in the College and for the illegality committed by the Principal, the Mithila University can not be compelled to further perpetrate the same.

Faced with the above situation, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court one in the case of Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, and the other in the case of Mrs Sheela Ashok Patwardhan Vs. Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College and others, and submitted that once the petitioner was allowed to appear at the B.Sc. Honours examination, her result can not be withheld for any reason whatsoever.

In Sri Krishan''s case (Supra) the appellant was a teacher in a Government high school in the State of Haryana. The University of Kurukshetra was running law classes for three years course and had extended the facility to the persons who were in service to attend evening classes and complete the three years course in that manner. The petitioner joined the LLB. Part I class in the year 1971. In 1972 he appeared in part I examination out of six subjects he failed in three. Still, the appellant was allowed to appear at part II examination. But his result was detained for the various reasons. The grounds for doing so were in three folds namely (i) The appellant was involved in a criminal case and, therefore, his employer could not give a character certificate, (ii) The appellant was short of requisite percentage in LL.B. Part I, and (iii) He could not have undertaken the evening law classes courses except with the permission of his superior officers. The Supreme Court on consideration of the various facts and the circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that since the material facts were within the knowledge of the University-authorities, therefore, it was not a case of fraud committed by the appellant. He can not be said to be guilty of suggestio falsi or suppressio veri. The University authority in spite of knowing the full facts, having exercised their discretion under the statutory provisions in accepting the candidature of the appellant in the examination, were not competent to subsequently turn around and cancel his candidature, on the grounds which were not invoked at the time the application was made by the appellant for permitting him to appear at the examination. It was for these reasons that the doctrine of acquiescence was applied against the University and University was directed to publish the result of LL B. Part II Examination in which the appellant had appeared and also to give him opportunity to appear in the three subjects in which he had failed in LL. B. Part I examination, at the next examination which may be held by the University.

In the case of Dr. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan (supra), the appellant was aggrieved by an action of the respondents, who had refused to admit her in the post-graduate M.D. Course in obstetrics and gynaecology for the 1987 session. The Supreme Court on review of the entire facts and the circumstances of the case as a proposition of law, in para 14 of the judgment, has held that normally the Supreme Court does not interfere in the matter of admission of students in the educational institutions but still keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the hardship caused to the appellant, grants some relief to her. Therefore, clearly in this case the relief was granted pursuant to the jurisdiction of the apex court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and no law, which can come to the rescue of the petitioner, was laid down, as provided under Article 141 of the Constitution.

Reverting to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, as discussed above, no provision of the Act or regulation made thereunder, has been placed before us from which it can be inferred that either the petitioner has a right to take admission in honours course in the college of Mithila University after completion of B.Sc. (Pass) course from a University of other State having different courses of study, standard of examination and eligibility for declaration of prescribed degree or that the authorities, under the Act, has been vested with some discretion to grant any relaxation in the matter of allowing a student it appear at the B.Sc. honours examination.

The Mithila University has been established u/s 3 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, and is governed by the provisions thereof. Section 4 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, deals with the purpose and powers of the University and Section 39 provides for making of regulations in the specified manner. The relevant sub-sections of above said Sections read as under:--

Purpose and powers of the University.--There shall be the following purposes and powers of the University : --

(1) (a) to provide for imparting instruction in such branches of learning as the University may think fit including professional studies and technology; and

(b) to provide for research and for the advancement of knowledge.

(2) to conduct examinations and to grant and confer degrees, diploma certificate and other academic distinctions to and upon persons who--

(a) have pursued and approved course of study in the University and passed the examination of the University, under the conditions laid down in the statutes, the Ordinances or the Regulation;

Regulation, how made.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the statutes and the Ordinance, Regulations may be made to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely--

(a) the courses of study to be laid down for all degrees and diplomas of the University;

(b) the condition under which students shall be admitted to the degree or diploma courses and to the examinations of the University and shall be eligible for such degrees and diplomas;

(c) the formation of departments of teaching in the Faculties;

(d) the conditions and mode of appointment and duties of examiners and the conduct of examinations;

(e) the standard of teaching to be maintained in the Colleges; and

(f) all matters which by this Act, the Statutes or the Ordinances are to be or may be provided for by Regulations.

From a reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that degree can be conferred to a person by the University only if he undertakes the courses of studies in a particular faculty and passes the examination in accordance with the provisions as are prescribed under the Regulation made in this behalf u/s 39 of the University Act. If the regulation made u/s 39 of the University Act does not permit transfer of students from one University to another in pass course and honours course, which is presumed to be known to all concerned, an act done in violation thereof, can not create any estoppel or acquiescence against anyone. It is well settled that estoppel does not operate against the statute. If the Principal of the College has acted in violation of the statutory provisions then the petitioner can lay an action only against him. The petitioner and his guardian should have taken proper care in ascertaining from the University whether in the facts of the present case, the statute permits transfer of the students from university of one State to the university of Bihar or not. Even otherwise as discussed above, there being no provisions under the regulation by which the marks obtained by the petitioner in eight papers in pass course in North Bengal University can be added by any mode of averaging in five papers in honours course for the publication of her result, no relief can be granted by this Court even for equitable reasons. It is so because the result of B.Sc. honours can be declared only by adding the marks obtained by a candidate in three papers of Botany while passing B.Sc. pass course in the university of Bihar but the same has not been done by the petitioner.

Under the facts and the circumstances of this case, this Court can not issue any writ or pass any order, which may grant any relief to the petitioner. But it is left open for the authorities of the Mithila University to grant such relief to the petitioner as may be permissible under the law pursuant to the provisions contained under the University Act.

The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs.

S.B. Sinha, J.

I agree with the orders proposed to be passed by my learned brother G.C. Bbaruka, J., but I would like to add a few words of mine.

The matter relating to admission of students in University, their courses of studies and fixation of the standard of education are the matters which are governed by and under the provisions of Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 39 of the said Act, regulations have been framed. The said regulations, thus have statutory force.

No examinee can be permitted to appear at the University examination in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute. Similarly, resolutions adopted under the Bihar Inter-University Board Act, 1981, have the force of law.

Regulations 18 and 37 of Chapter-II of Lalit Narayan Mithila University read thus :

If a candidate subsequent to the issue of an admit card is found to be ineligible to take the examination, his candidature shall be cancelled.

The Examination Board shall have power to quash or revise results of a candidate after it has been declared if it is found that he was ineligible to appear at the examination.

This aspect of the matter has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Amarendra Pratap Singh vs. Lalit Narayan Mithila University reported in 1987 P.L.J.R., 591, wherein the Court considering the similar provisions of regulations of Lalit Narayan Mithila University held :

The aforesaid provision again confers powers on the Examination Board to even quash or revise the declared results on the ground of ineligibility to appear in the examination.

The Full Bench also considered the question of estoppel raised at the Bar and held:

In the face of all the aforesaid statutory provisions there can possibly be no estoppel against them. Therefore, the claim for a mandamus to declare the results of the students who were plainly ineligible to take the examination appears to me as the proverbial crying for the moon.

The Full Bench also noticed the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University (supra) and distinguished the same on the ground that the said judgment was rendered in view of the specific language of the statutory provisions involved in those cases.

It is now well known that different Universities have different standards of education. The system of marking of answer books in different Universities may also be different. It is only in such view of the matter that competitive admission tests for admission to higher classes may be held and not only on the basis of the marks obtained at the University examinations.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in St. Stephen''s College etc., etc. Vs. The University of Delhi Etc., Etc., , the question which arose for consideration before it was as to whether the admission solely determined by the marks obtained by the students can be said to be the best available objective guide to future academic performance. The admission to the said College used to be made on the criteria of examination plus interview. The Supreme Court observed in that case:

We see neither any arbitrariness nor any vice or lack of scientific basis in the interview or in the selection. The interview confers no wide discretion to the Selection Committee to pick and choose any candidate of their choice. They have to select the best among those who are called for interview and the discretion is narrowly limited to select one out of every 4 or 5.

The College seems to have compelling reasons to follow its own admission programme. The College receives applications from students all over the country. The applications ranging from 12000 to 20000 are received every year as against a limited number of 400 seats available for admission.

The applicants come from different institutions with diverse standards. The merit judging by percentage of marks secured by applicants in different qualifying examinations with different standards may not lead to proper and fair selection. It may not also have any relevance to maintain the standards of excellence of education. As observed by this Court in D.N. Chanchala vs. State of Mysore, 1971 Supp SCR 608, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University can not be comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination of another University. Such standards depend on several human factors, method of teaching, examining and evaluation of answer papers. The subjects taught and examined may be the same, but the standard of examination and evaluation may vary, and the variations are inevitable. In the premises, the admission solely determined by the marks obtained by students, can not be the best available objective guide to future academic performance.

(Underlining is mine for emphasis)

In this situation, it can not be said that the resolution of Bihar State Inter-University Board putting an embargo on admission of a student in the Honours Course who have done the Pass Course from a University situate outside the State Of Bihar is arbitrary or unreasonable. Such resolution was passed probably keeping in view the Legislative Act and the statutes framed by different Universities in the State of Bihar are identical.

The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner have also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1989 Vol. 3, S.C. Cases 112 and 1989 Vol. 3 S.C. Cases, 362.

In Meenakshi Malik vs. University of Delhi & Others reported in 1989 S.C. C 112 at 114, it was held :

We are of opinion that condition in the prescription of qualifications for admission to a Medical College in Delhi providing that the last two years of education should be in a School in Delhi should be construed as not applicable to students who have to leave India with their parents on the parents being posted to a foreign country by the Govt.

It is, therefore, clear that the Supreme Court rendered the aforementioned decision in a special situation and in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Brother Bharuka, J. has already pointed out the distinctive features of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs. Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, Solapur and others reported in 1989 Vol. 3, S.C. C 362. In that case also the Supreme Court rendered the aforementioned decision in the special facts and circumstances of the case.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Surendra Kumar and others reported in 1992 Vol. 1, S.C. C 489, the Supreme Court held :

There is still another reason why High Court can not be equated with this Court. The Constitution has, by article 142 empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary "for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it", which authority the High Court does not enjoy. The jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with a writ petition, is circumscribed by the limitations discussed and declared by the judicial decisions, and it can not transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge.

Apart from the aforementioned fact, in the decisions cited before us by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner no embargo of the mandatory provisions of the statute came in the way of the Universities to publish the result of the candidates; but in this case, as indicated hereinbefore, the petitioner in view of the existing statute which has the force of law, could not have been admitted in the Honours Course at all. For the reasons aforementioned, I concur with the judgement of my learned brother.