Skip to content


Prahlad Kumar Vs. University of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 338 of 1984
Judge
Reported in1985(2)WLN679
AppellantPrahlad Kumar
RespondentUniversity of Rajasthan
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredKedar Lal Verma v. The Secretary
Excerpt:
.....had addressed a circular letter to all the principals of various colleges that admission should not be granted in ll.b. first year course unless the candidate has obtained minimum of 45 per cent marks in the aggregate at the qualifying examination. but if the principal of government college, karauli, had given admission to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be punished to suffer for the negligence of principal, government college, karauli.;appeal allowed - - b (first year) examination and found that he had failed in the said examination. (first year) examination held in october, 1983 learned single judge after hearing the petitioner as well as the university dismissed the petition and hence this appeal. the university may take suitable action against the principal if it so..........have been vigilant and should have informed the petitioner before he took up the ll.b, first year examination 1982, so that at least second year could have been saved. the authorities cited by learned counsel for the respondent are not very relevant wherein in our view the case of the petitioner appellant is fully covered by the decision of delhi high court in miss sangeeta's case. our attention has been drawn to ordinance 87(a), wherein vice chancellor has been given discretion to give admission in special cases and ex. r. 5 resolution of the syndicate, dated 3rd june, 1983, also show that the syndicate has also authority to regularise the admission in certain case. therefore, we are inclined to accept this appeal. we set aside the judgment of learned, single judge and allow the.....
Judgment:

Surekdra Nath Bhargava, J.

1. This is a special appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ, petition of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner passed the B.Com. Examination in the year 1981 and secured 43.5% marks. Thereafter the petitioner applied for the admission in LL.B. (First Year Course) in Government College, Karauli. He was given admission by the Government College, Karauli. He attended the classes and appeared in the LLB. First Year) Examination held in July 1982, as a regular student. The result of the LL.B. (1st year) Examination was declared in the month of January 1983 but the result of the petitioner was with-held. The petitioner obtained advance copy of his mark-sheet of LL.B (First year) Examination and found that he had failed in the said examination. Therefore he decided to appear in the LL.B. (1st year) examination for the year 1983 as an ex-student and submitted an application form for the same examination. For the first time by letter dated 27th September, 1983, the petitioner was informed that his LL.B. (first year) Examination, 1982, has been cancelled because he had secured less than 45% make in the B. Com. examination and therefore, he was not entitled to appear as ex-student in the LL.B. (First Year) Examination, commencing from 5th October, 1983. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed a writ petition in this Court. A notice to show-cause was issued as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and meanwhile, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the LL.B. (First Year) Examination which was to be held from 5th October, 1983. It was further ordered that the result shall not be declared till further orders of this Court. As a consequence of this order the petitioner appeared for the LL.B. (First Year) Examination held in October, 1983 Learned Single Judge after hearing the petitioner as well as the University dismissed the petition and hence this appeal.

3. Earned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his case is fully covered by a Division Bench decision of Delhi High Court in Miss. Sangeeta Srivastava v. Prof. U.N. Singh and Ors. : AIR1980Delhi27 . The facts of the case of Miss. Sangeeta Srivastava were also identical and there fore, the principle of equitable estoppel operated and the University cannot refuse the petitioner from appearing at the Examination of LL.B. (First Year) being held in October, 1983. The petitioner was not guilty of only misrepresentation or any malpractice. The Principal of the Government College, Karauli had given admission and the University is bound by the action of the Principal, Government College, Karauli and therefore, petitioner's result of LL.B. (First Year) Examination in which he appeared in October, 1983 should be declared and he should be permitted to continue his studies in LL.B. (Second Year), if he is declared passed in the LL.B. previous Examination.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the University has vehemently opposed and has submitted that in view of the consistent decisions in Punjab Engineer College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati andothers : [1983]2SCR801 in Punjab University, Chandigarh v. Devjani Chakrabarti and Ors. 0065/1984 : [1984]3SCR815 , and in Principal, King Georges' Medical College, Lucknow, U.P. and Anr. v. Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta and Ors. : [1984]1SCR302 , this Court should not interfere in the judgment passed by the learned single Judge. Learned counsel for the University has further placed reliance on a decision of Allahabad High Court in Kedar Lal Verma v. The Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Anr. AIR 1980 Allahabad 32 and has submitted that since the petitioner was ineligible in view of the Ordinance 252, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this appeal.

5. We have considered the arguments advanced before us and have also gone through the record of the case including the reply filed by the University before the learned single Judge. It is true that the University had addressed a circular letter to all the Principals of various colleges that admission should not be granted in LL.B. First Year course unless the candidate has obtained minimum of 45 percent marks in the aggregate at the qualifying examination. But if the Principal of Government College, Karauli, had given admission to the petitioner he cannot be punished to suffer for the negligence of Principal, Government College, Karauli. The University may take suitable action against the Principal if it so likes for not complying with the circular and instructions issued to him but a poor student who is not alleged to be guilty of any misrepresentation or malpractice or any fault cannot be made to suffer for the mistake of Principal. The petitioner appellant had studied in College for one year and since the University did not object appearing in the examination by the petitioner in 1982, the University cannot, in 1983, when two valuable years of the petitioner have been wasted in studying LL.B. Course be permitted to raise the question of eligibility of petitioner. The University ought to have been vigilant and it is an internal matter between the University and the Principal of various Colleges as to how they should see that their instructions regarding admission are strictly observed. The petitioner cannot be punished and his two valuable years cannot be allowed to go waste. The University as late on September 27, 1983 just ten days before the examination informed for the first time that his admission has been cancelled. The University should have been vigilant and should have informed the petitioner before he took up the LL.B, First Year Examination 1982, so that at least second Year could have been saved. The authorities cited by learned counsel for the respondent are not very relevant wherein in our view the case of the petitioner appellant is fully covered by the decision of Delhi High Court in Miss Sangeeta's case. Our attention has been drawn to Ordinance 87(A), wherein Vice Chancellor has been given discretion to give admission in special cases and Ex. R. 5 resolution of the Syndicate, dated 3rd June, 1983, also show that the Syndicate has also authority to regularise the admission in certain case. Therefore, we are inclined to accept this appeal. We set aside the judgment of learned, Single Judge and allow the appeal. We here by direct that the result of the petitioner appellant of LL.B. (First Year) Examination held in October 1983, be declared and if the petitioner has passed in the said examination he will be entitled and permitted to join his LL.B. 2nd Year Course which will start in the Year 1985. But in case the appellant has failed in some papers held in October, 1983 of LL.B. (First Year) he will be entitled to appear afresh in such papers in accordance with the rules of University.

6. In the result the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //