ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The instant two writ petitions are filed by common petitioner, Sri P. Manjunath. Writ Petition No. 203/2006 is filed by him, questioning the legality and validity of the Government order dated 6th November 1997 bearing No. ED/858/TPE/97, Bangalore, only so far as petitioner herein is concerned vide Annexure H. Further in the said writ petition, he has sought to declare that, the Government Order dated 6th November 1997 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner's case and for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue the III year Diploma course Marks card to the petitioner.
In Writ Petition No. 19542/2005, the same petitioner has assailed the correctness of the communication dated 18th August 2004 issued by first respondent to second respondent at Annexure D and also the communication dated 2nd August 2005 issued by second respondent vide Annexure G to petitioner and to declare that, the petitioner has withdrawn only one subject, i.e., item No. 4, i.e., Data Base Management System only and not all the subjects of the third year Diploma course.
2. Petitioner herein is a student who joined the Diploma in Computer Science in the second respondent-College. The duration of the said Diploma course is three years and he has completed the first and second year Diploma course in the respective academic years and thereafter, he has appeared for the Annual Examination of the third year Diploma course with register No. 031015-0 and passed in all subjects except one, i.e. the subject at item No. 5, i.e. Transmission Control Protocol; Internal Protocol (TCP:IP). Thereafter, petitioner has taken up the said failed subject, i.e., Transmission Control Protocol; Internal Protocol (TCP:IP) along with another subject in which he has secured less marks, i.e. the subject at item No. 4, i.e. Data Base Management System (DBMS) bearing Register No. 046417-0 and paid the necessary examination fees in respect of both the subjects. The said examination fees paid by petitioner has been forwarded by the second respondent-College to the first respondent-Board. The first respondent-Board, after accepting the examination fees in respect of the said two subjects, has permitted the petitioner to appear for the Supplementary Examination conducted by first respondent-Board in respect of improvement of one subject i.e. Data Base Management System and another failed subject i.e. Transmission Control Protocol: Internal Protocol (TCP:IP) held in the month of November 2004 and result has also been declared as having passed in both subjects. Be that as it may.
3. Thereafter, petitioner has approached the second respondent-College to collect the marks card. At that stage, petitioner came to know through second respondent that, the marks card has not been released by first respondent-Board so far. Therefore, he felt necessitated to present the W.P. No. 19542/2005. When the said writ petition was taken up for consideration, the first respondent-Board filed the objections, assigning reasons for not releasing/issuing the marks card to the petitioner stating that, as per the Government Order dated 6th November 1997, which is impugned in the first writ petition, if the petitioner wants to take the benefit of the said Government Order, he must withdraw the results declared in respect of all the subjects of the earlier examination and appear for all the subjects and he cannot pick and choose the subject and take the examination in respect of one or few subjects in which he has scored less marks. When the said statement was made in the objects, petitioner has realised the mistake and thereafter was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 203/2006 assailing the correctness or otherwise of the Government order dated 6th November 1997 issued by first respondent referred above. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, being aggrieved by the impugned Government Order and for others directions, as referred above, the common petitioner has presented the present two writ petitions.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. After careful evaluation of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that, petitioner has paid the necessary examination fees in respect of one failed subject, i.e. Transmission Control Protocol: Internal Protocol (TCP:IP) and for improvement in another one subject i.e. Data Base Management System (DBMS) pertaining to III year Diploma Course in the supplementary Examinations conducted during November 2004, which the second respondent-College and the first respondent-Board have permitted the petitioner to take up and appear for the said subjects in the Supplementary Examination held during November 2004 and subsequently, his result has also been announced, declaring him as 'passed' in both subjects taken up by him. It reveals from the material available on record that, in spite of the best sincere efforts made by petitioner requesting the second respondent to issue the marks card pertaining to the examinations taken up by him, the same has not been issued on the ground that, the marks card has not been released by the first respondent-Board and the same has been withheld by the Board on the ground that, when once the petitioner has chosen to take the benefit of the Government order dated 6th November 1997, he is supposed to take improvement of all subjects and cannot pick and choose the specific subjects in which he has scored less marks and that, withdrawal of single subject is impermissible as per the Government order issued by first respondent. In the instant case, petitioner has appeared in respect of one failed subject along with improvement in respect of another subject in which he has scored less. But, as per the said Government Order, the candidates who want to improve their performance in marks have to withdraw the performance in respect of all the subjects of that particular Examination and he or she cannot pick and choose any one or two subjects for improvement of their marks and it is also not permissible at a time to both appear in respect of a failed subject and take up improvement of marks in respect of another subject. The said error came to light only at the time of issuing the marks card by the first respondent-Board. It is significant to note here itself that, when the petitioner has paid the examination fee for improvement of one subject in which he has secured less marks and also paid the examination fee in respect of another failed subject, the same has been accepted by the second respondent-College and communicated to the Board. The Board also, in turn, has not raised any objection at that stage and now taking a stand that, the second respondent-College has permitted the student to appear for the examination contrary to the Government Order, after realising the mistake belatedly and that, the marks card cannot be released, by placing reliance on the Government Order, is not justifiable. If there is no co-ordination between the College and the Board, the petitioner should not be made scapegoat and if there is any doubt or any error/ mistake has crept in, and realised at a later stage, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of petitioner rather than respondents. Another important fact to be borne in mind is that, petitioner has already lost one precious year of his academic career and the said error has been pointed out by the Board at a belated stage, after a lapse of one year. If the same had been pointed out at the time of paying the examination fees itself, the petitioner would definitely not have taken any risk in taking up the Examination and even the Board has not taken any precautionary measure at the time of announcing the result in the internet. This shows lapses on the part of the first respondent-Board as well as the second respondent-College and also the Board taking a stand in the objections that, the Government order is not applicable to the petitioner and College authorities are well aware of this fact as the same has been communicated to the College. If that is the case, it is very much open for the Board to take action against the second respondent-College but definitely cannot take the student's career for a ride for no fault of his, especially when he has bona fide appeared for the Examination with permission of the Board, being totally unaware of the said Government Order dated 6th November 1997 and result also has been declared. Withholding of issuance of marks card at this stage, pointing out that, if petitioner wants to take up improvement of his marks, he has to withdraw all the subjects and is not entitled to pick and chose a particular subject for taking improvement of his marks, is not justifiable.
5. Therefore, without expressing any views on the correctness or otherwise of the Government Order issued by Government dated 6th November 1997 and without going into further merits and demerits of petitioner's case, as stated above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, under which petitioner has been permitted to pay the examination fees, appear for the examination, results having been declared and now withholding of marks card at this stage placing reliance on the Government Order, is highly unjustifiable, as stated supra.
6. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the instant writ petitions filed by petitioner stands disposed of with a direction to first respondent-Board to issue the marks card in respect of III year Diploma Course, taken up by petitioner in the Supplementary Examination conducted during November 2004 to petitioner, if not already issued and also to issue a consolidated marks card in respect of the III year Diploma course, making it crystal clear that, the same would not set a precedent for other students, as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also open for the first respondent or the competent authority, to make a mention in the marks card that, this shall not set a precedent, if they are so advised.
7. With these observations, the writ petitions filed by petitioner stand disposed of.