Sanjay Kumar Madan vs Maharishi Dayanand University and Others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—Petitioner, who is a student of 7th Semester of Bachelor of Engg. Degree Course, has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents permitting him to take the Signal System Examination of 3rd semester along with 7th semester examination to be conducted in April, 1999.

The petitioner was admitted to the Chhotu Ram State College of Engineering, Murthal, on 9.10.1995. The petitioner cleared his two semester. However, when he appeared for the third semester in December, 1996, upon declaration of the result, the petitioner was shown to be having re-appear in two subjects, namely, Signal Systems and Mechanical Technology. In the re-appear examination in May, 1997, of which the results were declared on 5.11.1997 and the petitioner cleared one of the subjects of the re-appears. The result card issued by the respondents is Annexure P/3 to the writ petition. The petitioner again appeared in December, 1997 for the re-appear examination and result was declared on 25.4.1998. The petitioner was communicated vide notified result dated 31.12.1998 that petitioner had re-appear only in one subject i.e. mechanical technology. The petitioner acted upon that intimation and took the re-appear examination only in one paper. However, vide result intimation dated 23.12.1998, Annexure P/6 to the petition, the respondents again informed the petitioner that he has to take the re-appear examination in both the papers. In the meanwhile the petitioner had been promoted to 7th semester of the Course and he attended all the classes for the 7th semester and was prepared to take the examination of the 7th semester to be held in April, 1999. The petitioner was denied permission by the respondents to appear in the examination of the 7th semester because he had not cleared the 3rd semester. In view of these circumstances the petitioner was compelled to file the present writ petition.

Upon notice the respondents filed reply wherein it was contended that in accordance with Clause 6 of the Ordinance, the petitioner had no right to take the examination of the semester system without clearing the 3rd semester and he was also not entitled to admission to the 8th semester of the engineering course.

Separate written statement was filed on behalf of the college wherein it was stated that vide letter dated 23.12.1998 the result of the petitioner was re- notified and he was shown to have re-appear in the two subjects in the 3rd semester as such he had no right to take examination of the 7th semester.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. No doubt proviso to Rule 12 of the Ordinance specifically provides that a candidate shall not be allowed to attend classes and appear in the semester examinations mentioned in column ''A'' unless he has passed in the semester examination mentioned in column ''B''. But equally true is that Rule 11 of the Ordinance protects a student under the scheme of the Ordinance. The said rule reads as under:-

"11. A candidate whose result declared late for no fault of his may attend classes of the next higher Semester provisionally at his own risk and responsibility."

Both the above provisions have to be construed harmoniously to achieve the object under the Ordinance. The intention is very clear that if a candidate has not been able to get his results on time, he would be provisionally admitted to the higher semester provided no fault is attributable to the candidate himself. In the present case vide Annexure P/4 the result card dated 25.4.1998 petitioner was shown to have got re-appear in two papers. However, vide Annexure P.5 the petitioner was shown to have cleared one paper and his re-appear was only shown in Mechanical Technology. In other words, after taking the second attempt and declaration of the result on 5.11.1997 the petitioner was well within his rights to believe that he has cleared one paper while he was not able to clear the other re-appear paper in Mechanical Technology. It was only on 23.12.1998 that the petitioner was intimated vide Annexure P/6 again that he had got re-appear in two papers. Petitioner had no reason to believe prior to 23.12.1998 that he had got re-appear in both papers, as per information given he had, already cleared one in the examination held in May, 1997. This has not been disputed as a matter of fact.

What is being argued on behalf of the respondents is that strict adherence to the provisions of the Ordinance would dis-entitle the petitioner from taking 7th semester. It is true that the ordinance of the University must be strictly construed, but they cannot be read so as to permit the University to take advantage of its own wrong or fault specially in face of Rule 11 of the Ordinance. The protection which had been provided to the students under the provisions of Rule 11 cannot be frustrated in the manner in which the University wishes to act at this stage now. The petitioner has been deprived of one chance of re-appear for the fault of the University. In furtherance to the result declared in November, 1997, the petitioner would have got two chances for re-appear in December, 1997 and April, 1998 before taking up his 7th Semester examination.

It is not disputed that the University had declared the result holding that the petitioner had cleared one of the re-appear subjects and also that he has attended complete classes for the 7th semester, ends of justice and equity demands that the petitioner should not be made to suffer for the error on the part of the University in face of Rule 11 of the Ordinance. The petitioner would have been entitled to take the re-appear examination in both the subjects instead of one, but for the intimation given to him in November, 1997 when the University on 23.12.1998 again informed the petitioner that two chances of re-appear had already gone by, which could not be availed of by the petitioner for no fault of his own.

We are of the considered view that no fault is attributable to the petitioner and from the above narrated facts it is clear that the petitioner could not take the examination of 7th semester when he has admittedly attended the entire course of the 7th semester. Consequently, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to take the examination of the 7th semester which are to commence from April, 1999 and also permit the petitioner to take the chance of re-appear of his remaining papers of the 3rd semester in accordance with the intimation given by the University dated 23.12.1998 along with these examinations in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.