Rohit Sharma vs University of Jammu

Bilal Nazki, J.—The petitioner has been a student of Gandhi Memorial College, Jammu studying in B.Sc. PartI with subjects of Botany,

Zoology, Chemistry and English. He had to appear in the annual examination of B.Sc. PartI session 1994 at Jammu. According to the petitioner,

he had completed all the requisite formalities and was allotted Roll No. 213101, and a Roll No. slip was issued in his favour by respondent No. 4.

The examination centres were notified and the petitioner was required to appear for examination at Gandhi Memorial Science College, Jammu.

According to the petitioner, he appeared for examination in English, Botany and Zoology. Last of all, he had to appear in Chemistry on 18.5.1994.

When he reached the examination centre and entered the examination hall, he was not permitted to sit in the examination by the Superintendent of

the Centre. According to him, he was informed by the Superintendent that he had not completed the requisite number of lectures in the discipline of

Botany, and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible to sit in the examination. The petitioner denies that he was short of attendance in persuing the

lectures in any of the subjects. Thereafter, the results came to be declared on 30.7.1994. Against the petitioner's Roll No. ``Sessional Awaited'' is

mentioned. Therefore, his results were not declared. According to the petitioner, the Principal of the College had told the petitioner that he would

recommend his case to the University, so that he could reappear in Chemistry paper in a subsequent examination. Till date, neither the result of the

petitioner has been declared nor has he been allowed to take examination in Chemistry (C) in which he had not appeared in annual session of

1994, therefore, he filed this writ petition.

Counter has been filed, in which the respondents have contended that as per the University Statutes, a candidate is required to attend 66% of

lectures in each of the subjects opted by him in the College, before he is declared eligible for appearing in the examination. According to the

Statutes, shortage of five lectures in theory and three lectures in practicals in each of the subjects can be condoned, and in case it is not condoned,

the candidates are not allowed by the University to appear in the examination. That can only be allowed in a subsequent supplementary

examination, provided the candidates attend the classes as regular students and comptete 66% lectures. It has been admitted that the petitioner

was persuing the course in General English, Botany, Zoology and Chemistry subjects, but he had not attended the requisite number of lectures in

Botany (Theory). It has further been averred by the respondentUniversity that Roll numbers are allotted to all those candidates whose

admissioncumpermission forms accompanied with fees are received by the University. The Roll numbers are issued and sent to the Principal of the

college concerned with a direction that Roll number slips be given to only those candidates who are eligible. According to the University, the

petitioner appeared in the examination either due to oversight in the office of the Principal GGM Science College or in connivance with the

administrative staff of the said College. And when it came to the notice of the Superintendent Examination centre that the candidate was not

eligible, he prevented the petitioner from appearing in the examination in Chemistry paper (C) on account of ineligibility.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once he was given the Roll number

and allowed to appear in the examination of various papers, he could not be prevented from appearing in the last paper. That the petitioner could

not be prevented at the last stage from appearing in Chemistry paper (C) without affording him an opportunity of being heard. He further submits

that the action of the University is against the rules of natural justice, and on this count alone, it merits to be quashed. He further submitted that even

in terms of the University Calendar, under Statute 2 of Chapter XXX once the Roll Number slip is issued, the University has no authority to cancel

the permission granted by it to a candidate for sitting in the Examination. Statute (2) of Chapter XXX is reproduced below :

``A candidate for any examination of this University shall on or before the date prescribed for the purpose vide AppendixII submit to the

Controller of Examination his/her application for permission on the prescribed form along with the fees and certificates signed by an Officer

authorised for this purpose vide Statute 3 hereinafter appearing to the effect that he/she has fulfilled all the conditions laid down by the University in

this behalf and is of good character.''

From a bare perusal of this Rule, it becomes clear that once a form for admission along with the fees is submitted to the University, it should

contain a certificate of an Officer authorised for this purpose vide Statute (3) about the eligibility of a candidate. Statute (3) lays down that for

regular candidates, the Principals of Colleges while stating that the candidate has perused the course has to certify and attest that the candidate has

fulfilled all the conditions laid down by the University. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, have drawn my attention to

Statutes 11 and 12 Chapter XXX of the University Calendar. Statute 11 is not applicable to the present case, because the power under this

Statute has been granted to the Syndicate of the University or the Committee which deals with unfair means and the cases of misconduct. Statue

12 permits the Controller of Examination to withdraw before or during examination, the permission granted to a candidate due to some mistake or

omission, if he was not eligible for appearance at a University Examination, even though if an admission card has been issued. The persual of

Statutes 2, 3, 11 and 12 would show that a permission card (Roll Number Card) issued to a candidate for sitting at any Examination can only be

cancelled in two situations: (1) If the University Syndicate or the Committee for dealing with unfair means decided to withdraw the permission for

use of unfair means or for committing misconduct; and (2) It can also be withdrawn by Controller of Examination if he finds that Roll Number

Permission slip has been issued by mistake or omission, and the candidate was not eligible for appearing in the examination.

In the present case, the prevention of petitioner from appearance in the examination of last paper was neither made under Statute 11 nor under

Statute 12 of the University Calendar. It was the Superintendent of the Examination centre who prevented the petitioner from appearing in

Examination in Chemistry Paper (C). The counsel for the respondents have not been able to show me any power which was available to the

Superintendent of the Examination centre to prevent the petitioner from appearing in the examination. Even when the result was declared, the

petitioner's result was withheld on the plea that his sessionals had not been received. Even at that point of time, the University did not take the

stand that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the Examination. They had not even pointed out as to how many lectures the petitioner was

short of in the Botany subject. Even till date the Controller of Examination has not passed an order withholding the permission granted to the

petitioner previously. I am of the opinion that even while exercising power under Statutes 11 and 12 of the University Calendar, ends of justice

demand issuance of a notice to the candidate against whom action is sought to be taken under the said provisions. In this case, it appears that the

action was taken by a person who was not at all empowered to prevent the petitioner from appearing in the examination. I, therefore, allow this

writ petition and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination of Chemistry (C) at the next available opportunity. In

the meantime, they shall declare the result of the petitioner with regard to all the subjects in which he has already appeared in the examination. I am

pained to note that in a callous manner one precious year of the petitioner has been wasted by the respondents. Therefore, the respondent

University is directed to pay Rs. 1,000/ as costs to the petitioner, by way of expenses incurred by him on litigation.

This petition is disposed of accordingly.