Judgment:
N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This revision petition is against the order of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dated 26-4-1991 whereby the order passed by Sub Judge I Class granting the injunction as prayed by the petitioner was reversed.
2. Briefly put, the petitioner was a student of B A. Part II of Arya College, Ludhiana, for the academic year 1989-90. In pursuance to his application for permitting him to appear in the examination, the same was forwarded by the College authorities to the University which consequently allotted roll number 97198. It is further case of the plaintiff-petitioner that after issuance of the roll number the same was withheld by respondent No. 3 which impelled the petitioner to file a suit and on an application filed in the suit, Sub-Judge I Class restrained defendant No. 3 from withholding the said roll number slip vide order dated 3-1-1990 and so the petitioner took examination for B.A. Part II as held by respondent No. 1. Result of this examination was declared some time in April 1990 but the result of the petitioner was not declared. Since Respondent No.3 was reluctant to give him admission to B.A. Part III, i.e. for the session 1990-91, the petitioner took provisional admission to B.A. Part III class in the Directorate of Correspondence Course, Punjab University, Chandigarh. Direct rate of Correspondence Courses after having admitted him to Part III year course of B.A. issued a letter bearing No. 5230/COR/A dated 3.12.1990 directing him to submit the original detailed marks card/certificate of B.A. Part II examination. The petitioner consequently approached the present respondents (defendants) in this regard who, however, refused to grant the prayer made. Hence the present suit.
3. The petitioner by means of interim relief sought a direction against the respondents to the effect that they be restrained from withholding the result of B.A. Part II examination which he undertook pursuant to the roll number allotted by the university in this regard.
4. The respondents put in the appearance and contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the present suit of the petitioner is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. Besides this, it was contended that the result of the petitioner cannot be declared as he had not obtained the required percentage of attendance during the session in accordance with the University Calender.
5. The trial court after considering the submissions made by the respective counsels, came to the conclusion that since the petitioner has appeared in B.A. Part II examination, it would be highly unjust and improper if his result is withheld thereby debarring him from pursuing his further studies. The trial Court specifically took into consideration that the roll number was issued by the University and the petitioner in turn appeared in the examination as well and so directed the respondents to declare his result. This order was challenged by the Punjab University on the ground that the roll number allotted to the petitioner was provisional and the petitioner was in fact allowed to take the examination in view of the direction of the civil court. Since, he did not attend the requisite number of lectures as prescribed by the university and so was ineligible, and this way the university rightly withheld the result of the plaintiff.
6. Lower appellate court after weighing the submissions of the counsels held that the declaration of the petitioner's result would lead to incongruity in as much as his previous suit in which the question of eligibility is patently involved may fail. This would evidently amount to declaring an ineligible candidate to have passed an examination. Such an action of university, if permitted, would expose it to ridicule.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed this order of the Additional District Judge.
8. The first submission of the learned counsel is that the court has erred in law in overlooking the well laid down judicial decisions which are taken into consideration while granting or declining interim injunction on the basis of facts of each case. These are: (i) that the petitioner has a prima-facie case; (ii) balance of convenience lies in his favour; and (iii) that non-granting of interim injunction would cause an irreparable injury. When tested on these premises, the impugned order of the Additional District Judge is legally unsustainable.
9. Learned appellate Court indeed has overlooked the above mentioned points while considering the appeal. It is admitted fact that roll number was issued by the University and petitioner has appeared in the examination of B. A. Part If as well. It is also admitted that no objection was raised either by the College authorities or by the University when his application was processed and on the other hand, it was found to be in order and so the roll number was issued by the University. It is only subsequently that college perhaps intimated the university for withholding the roll number already issued by the university on the ground that he had not attended the requisite number of lectures. This approach of the lower appellate court is contrary to the judgment of the apex Court in Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 376. The relevant observations of the apex Court are hereunder reproduced:-
'Once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. Before issuing the admission card to a student to appear at Part I Law examination in April. 1972 it was the duty of the University authorities to scrutinise the admission form filled by the student in order to find out whether it was in order. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the University to see that the form complied with all the requirements. If either the Head of the Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinise the admission form, then in not disclosing the shortage of percentage in attendance, the question of the candidate committing a fraud did not arise. Similarly when the candidate was allowed to appear at the Part II Law examination in May 1973, the University authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination. If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the examination, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate.'
Even if it be taken that there was some shortfall in attending the requisite lectures, yet it was the duty of the college authorities to keep in mind before sending his admission form to the University. No such objection was raised by the college authorities in this regard It appears that the University authorities too did not raise any objection and so allotted roll number Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner appeared in B.A. Part II examination and has also attended B.A. Part III Classes, it would be highly unjust and improper if he is prevented from improving his educational qualification on a mere technical objection, i.e., shortage of lectures. The lower appellate court has erred in ignoring the dictum of the apex Court referred to above. I accordingly accept this revision petition, set aside the order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, and affirm that of the trial court thereby directing the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner for B. A. Part II examination held in the year 1989 90 without any inordinate delay preferably within a fortnight from the receipt of this order. No costs.