Arvind Kumar Prasad, and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar, and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[markandey katju; gyan sudha misra, jj.] - mr. qadri, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the copy of the report of the union public service commission was supplied to the respondent-employee along with the dismissal order. it may be noted that the decision in s.n.narula's case (supra) was prior to the decision in t.v.patel's case(supra). sheema ali khan, j. the petitioner is the student of 1996 batch of b.sc. (engineering) of bihar college of engineering, patna university, patna. the bihar college of engineering has been taken over by the national institute of technology in the year 2004.2. the petitioner has cleared the first year examination in october, 1998. the petitioner appeared in the second year examination held in july, 1999 and cleared six papers, but was unable to clear two papers. she, therefore, appeared in november, 1999 for the two papers which she had not cleared in the first attempt. unfortunately, in the second attempt, she failed in the said papers and she was only able to clear those two papers in the examination held in june, 2000. the results were declared on 30.01.2001 and the petitioner passed in.....

Judgment:
Sheema Ali Khan, J. The petitioner is the student of 1996 batch of B.Sc. (Engineering) of Bihar College of Engineering, Patna University, Patna. The Bihar College of Engineering has been taken over by the National Institute of Technology in the year 2004.

2. The petitioner has cleared the first year examination in October, 1998. The petitioner appeared in the second year examination held in July, 1999 and cleared six papers, but was unable to clear two papers. She, therefore, appeared in November, 1999 for the two papers which she had not cleared in the first attempt. Unfortunately, in the second attempt, she failed in the said papers and she was only able to clear those two papers in the examination held in June, 2000. The results were declared on 30.01.2001 and the petitioner passed in those two papers. The petitioner thereafter sat and appeared for the third year examinations, the results of which were declared on 15.03.2001. On 19th July, 2001, the petitioner's admission was cancelled vide Annexure-1 which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ application. During the pendency of this application, this Court directed that respondents 1 & 2 should accept the fees and forms etc. for the appearance of the petitioner in the Part-IV B.Sc. (Engineering) Course and they should allow the petitioner to sit in the said examination. The petitioner sat for the fourth year examination. Her result has not been published in lieu of the interim order of this Court on 29.08.2001.

3. Annexure-1 is purported to have been issued under Clause 12 of the Regulation for the Bachelor of Science (Engineering), Bachelor of Technology (Production Engineering) and bachelor of Architecture Examinations, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 1977 Regulation). Clause 12 of the 1977 Regulation reads as follows:-

12 (i) If at any examination, a candidate passes in sessional work but fails in not more than three subjects he may be promoted to the next higher class, such candidate shall be required to appear and pass in the written papers of the subject(s) in which he has failed, in the next examination along with the subjects of the next higher class. If he fails in more than three subjects he may appear as non collegiate candidate in the subsequent examination but shall have to appear in all the subjects. If he fails in sessional work, he has to take readmission.(ii) If a candidate promoted as in (iii) above, passes in all the papers (or fails in 3 papers or less) and also passes in sessional work of the higher examination, but does not pass the lower examination, his result of the higher examination shall be withheld, till he is declared to have passed the lower examination. However, he has the option of appearing in all the papers of the higher class as in (iv) above".

4. On perusal of sub Clause (ii) of Clause 12, it appears that a candidate who is promoted and has failed in three papers or less, would be permitted to appear in the next examination held for those papers and would also be permitted to take admission in the higher class, however, the results of the higher class would be withheld until he has been declared to have passed the lower examination. The petitioner admittedly passed her second year examination before the declaration of the results of the third year examination. This is not a case where the petitioner had not passed the second year examination at all, rather the petitioner had cleared all the papers and had taken admission in the third year, sat for the examination and cleared the examination of Part-III B.Sc. (Engineering). It appears that Patna University, as it was then, has not given the correct interpretation to Clause 12 (ii) of the 1977 Regulation. In any event, it is about time that the fourth year results of the petitioner should be declared.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the National Institute of Technology submits that the National Institute of Technology will not be in a position to declare the results as all the concerned documents etc. are with the Patna University and, therefore, prayed that it would be proper that Patna University should be asked to declare the results of Part-IV of the B.Sc. (Engineering) Examinations.

6. Nobody has appeared for the Patna University in this case. Nevertheless, I direct that the Part-IV results of the petitioner should be declared by the Authorities who has now get the entire records with respect to the 1996 Batch of B.Sc. (Engineering) within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

7. The question which may arise in this case which is troubling the Counsel appearing on behalf of the National Institute of Technology is that, if the petitioner has failed in the two papers or more in the 1996 Examination, which of the two, i.e. the Patna University or the National Institute of Technology would hold the examination with respect to the petitioner. This matter has been resolved by the order passed in CWJC NO. 8665 of 2008, disposed of on 23.07.2008, wherein the Court has held that the Controller of the Examination of the Patna University should take permission from the National Institute of Technology for holding the special examination to enable the petitioner to clear her carry over papers. The Patna University, on the other hand, can also make a request to the National Institute of Technology to hold the special examination as they are now the technical body, and by law are administrating the engineering colleges which was earlier run and administrated by the Patna University.

8. In my opinion, the National Institute of Technology would be the authority to hold such special examination after the Controller of Examination; Patna University gives its no objection to the National Institute of Technology. In case, such a situation arises, and the petitioner is required to clear some carry over papers of the fourth year, the Controller of the Examination, Patna University will at once make a request to the National Institute of Technology for holding the special examination with respect to the petitioner by giving `No Objection Certificate' to the National Institute of Technology and the National Institute of Technology thereafter will hold the special examination for the petitioner within a reasonable period.

9. The results of the petitioner may be declared forthwith.

10. In the result, this writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)