Saroj Devi vs Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra

R.L. Anand, J.—Petitioner Saroj Devi has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and has prayed that the reply given by respondent No. 2 to the legal notice dated 5.2.1999 be quashed and the respondents be directed to declare her result of Shastri Final Examination of additional subjects i.e. English and Hindi which was given by Kuruk-shetra University under Roll No. 2087 held in April, 1998.

The case set up by the petitioner is that she passed Shastri 1st year in Sanskrit in April, 1992 by securing 253 marks out of 600 and thereafter she cleared Sanskrit (Shastri) Part-II in April, 1994 by securing 291 marks out of 600. She also cleared her Sanskrit (Shastri) Part-Ill in April, 1995 by securing751 marks out of 1600. Then she tried to take admission in M.A. with Kurukshetra University, but as per the rules and eligibility condition she had to clear the Hindi and English subjects in Shastri Part-Ill in Sanskrit. Resultantly she applied for taking examination of English and Hindi as additional subjects. She filled the form which was received by the University along with requisite fee. She was issued Roll No. slip by the Controller of Examination. Date-sheet was also supplied to her. She appeared in the examination of additional subjects i.e. English and Hindi on 4.4.1998 and 10.4.1998 respectively, but the result has not been declared by the respondents and the same has been withheld illegally. She sent a legal notice, to which reply was given by the respondents that inadvertently the roll number was issued to the petitioner, but she was not eligible to appear in the additional papers keeping in view the fact that she had passed the Shastri part-III under the old scheme where there is no provision for appearing in the additional papers. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, against the principle of natural justice and it is not tenable in the eyes of law. With this background the petitioner has made a prayer that the stand of the respondents be rejected and directions be given to them to declare her result.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. The stand of the respondents can be summarised as follows : According to the respondent there was two scheme of examination of Shastri which were introduced w.e.f. 1991-92 and 1992-93. The scheme of 1991-92 contained maximum marks 1600 and the scheme of 1992-93 contained 1200 marks. The scheme of examination which was introduced w.e.f. 1991-92 had no provision of additional subjects in Shastri Part-111 and the candiate who passed under this scheme was given "Samanya degree". Under the scheme introduced w.e.f. 1992-93 "Samanya Upadhi" is awarded to the passed candidate and the candidate who passed with two additional subjects i.e. English and one additional subject/elective subject out of 4 subjects i.e. Hindi, History, Economics, Political Science is Shastri Part-I, II and III were awarded "Vishistha Upadhi,"

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted vehemently that the petitioner appeared under the scheme of 1991-92 and under the said scheme a candidate is not permitted to undertake the examination of additional subjects. It is only under the scheme 1992-93, which carries 1200 marks, that a candidate is permitted to undertake the examination of additional subjects in order to get "Vashistha Upadhi" on the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the scheme of 1991-92, which carries 1600 marks there is no specific condition that a candidate who undertakes examination under this scheme has no right to undertake the examination of the additional subjects. Moreover, when the petitioner applied to undertake the examination of additional subjects, she filled the form. Her form was accepted by the University and examination fee was taken from her. Roll number and date-sheet were issued to her and the petitioner by thinking all the times that she can appear in the additional subjects undertook the examination and now it is not open to the respondents to say that the petitioner was not qualified to undertake the examination of the additional subjects i.e. English and Hindi. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the classification of the scheme for the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 has no rationality. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner cites Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, .

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and am of the considered opinion that this writ petition must succeed as the stand of the respondents has no legs. The petitioner was never informed before acceptance of her form that she was not eligible to appear in the examination of additional subjects. Her form was accepted which must have been scrutinised in the office. The petitioner have not concealed anything from the University at the time of submission of her examination form. When the University has accepted the form of the petitioner with open mind, now it is not open to it to say that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the examination, especially when the petitioner has already undertaken the examination. In these circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner of the examination of additional subjects of Shastri Final held in April, 1998 within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. No order as to costs.

This order is passed only in peculiar circumstances and shall not be a binding instance for the respondent-University.

Petition allowed