Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : This appeal raises a short question about the construction of Regulation 4 of the Regulations framed by the Academic Council of appellant No. 3, the Patna University, under Section 34 (b) of the Patna University Act, 1951 (Bihar Act XXV of 1951). The respondent Kalyan Srinivas Raman was a student who appeared at and passed the test examination held by the Patna College for sending up students for the University examination B. A. Part I. His name was shown in the list of candidates who were eligible to appear for the said University Examination and this list was published on March 26, 1965, by the college authorities. On March 29, 1965, however, a notice was put up on the notice-board by appellant No. 1, the Principal of the Patna College, indicating that the respondent was not eligible to be sent up for the said University Examination, 1965 and that his roll number had been included in the list published earlier due to a clerical mistake. The respondent felt aggrieved by this notice and filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court on Sunday, the 18th April 1965 and presented it to the learned Chief Justice of the High Court at his residence. By this writ petition, the respondent prayed for a writ of mandamus or for any appropriate order or direction for quashing and cancelling the notice issued by appellant No. 1 on the 29th March 1965: he further prayed for an appropriate order or direction to appellant No. 1; the Vice-Chancellor of the Patna University appellant No. 2; and appellant No. 3 to permit him to appear at the said University Examination.

2. The learned Chief Justice received the writ petition and directed that the same should be heard by a Bench of two Hon ble Judges of the said High Court at night. Accordingly, the Division Bench heard the said writ petition at the residence of one of the two learned Judges and passed an interim order admitting the writ petition and directing that pending its hearing the respondent should be permitted to appear at the said Examination, but that his result should not be published until disposal of his application. It appears that the writ petition itself had not been sworn to and no vakalatnama had been filed when it was presented to the learned Chief Justice and was subsequently admitted by the Division Bench. After passing the interim order, the Division Bench directed that the respondent could get the affidavit sworn and vakalatnama filed the next day.

3. In obedience to the said interim order, appellant No. 1 forwarded the respondent s application to appellant No. 3, though he made it clear that the respondent had not attended adequate number of practical classes and his record of practical work was not satisfactory and as such, he did not fulfil the requirements of the relevant Regulations. As a consequence, the respondent was allowed to appear at the said Examination.

4. The appellants then appeared before the High Court and resisted the respondent s claim. They urged that the relevant Regulations did not justify the respondent s contention that he was eligible to appear at the said Examination and they contended that the impugned notice issued by appellant No. 1 was fully justified.

5. The learned Judges who heard the writ petition have, however, rejected the contentions raised by the appellants in regard to the construction of the relevant regulations and have held that under the said regulations, it was obligatory on appellant No. 2 to have considered the question whether the deficiency in the respondent s attendance in the practicals of Geography should be condoned or not. That is why the High Court has directed that a writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued to quash the impugned notice, and that a writ in the nature of mandamus should be issued to the appellants directing them to act in accordance with Regulation 5 in the light of the construction placed by the High Court on the said regulation. The High Court has also ordered tha