Judgment

ORDER: - Special leave granted.

2. Appellant passed Bachelors examination in law from the Banaras Hindu University securing 54.4% marks and was placed in the second division. He applied for admission in the Masters Course in Law in the academic session 1979/80. The University had prescribed a minimum of 55% marks on the average of three years of the degree course as the qualifying requirement. Appellant claimed weightage on the basis that members of his family had donated lands and houses to the University and cited the case of Shri Anant Narain Singh as a precedent. As he failed to secure admission, he again applied for taking admission in the academic session 1983-84 but was not granted admission. Ultimately he filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. On 28-7-1986 the said writ petition was taken up for hearing by a Division Bench and when hearing was concluded, judgment was dictated in open Court allowing the writ petition and direction to the University to admit the petitioner was ordered. The appellant applied for certified copy of the judgment but was told that the matter was again in the hearing list and would be heard afresh. The matter continued to appear in the hearing list from September, 1985 till 5-2-1987 when the particular Division Bench which had heard the matter released the case to be taken up by another Bench. On 23rd of March, 1987, the writ petition was dismissed by the new Division Bench.

3. Two contentions have been raised before us. It is maintained that once the judgment was delivered in open Court it became operative and could not be changed. The dismissal of the writ petition after it had been once allowed was, therefore, without jurisdiction; it was also contended that on the facts of the case the appellant should have been given admission.

4. There is no dispute that on 28-7-1986, a Division Bench heard the writ petition and disposed it of. The order sheet of that day reads thus:

"Shri Aditya Narain for the petitioner Sri Siddheshwar Pd. for the respondents petition heard finally. Writ petition disposed of".

Subsequently there is an endorsement without anybodys signature to the following effect :

"Under signature (illegible) Listed for further hearing".

On February 5, 1987, the same learned Judges who had allowed the writ petition gave the following directions :-

"We release this case but we direct that this case be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for getting it listed before the appropriate bench as the matter was once heard by us and judgment dictated but later on was not signed and was ordered to be listed for further hearing.

As prayed by counsel for University the petition may be listed, if possible on 25th February, 1987".

5. There is no dispute that the writ petition had been allowed by judgment pronounced in open Court on 28-7-1986 after hearing was concluded. According to the appellant the judgment once pronounced in open Court became operative even without signature of the learned Judges and could not be altered. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1954 SCR 330. The facts of that case show that a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court sitting at Lucknow consisting of Kidwai and Bhargava JJ. heard a criminal appeal and on 11th of December, 1952, judgment was reserved. Before it could be delivered Bhargava J. was shifted to Allahabad. While there, he dictated a judgment treating it to be a judgment of both. He signed every page of the judgment as well as at the end but did not put the date. He sent it to Kidwai J. at Lucknow. On the 24th of December, 1962, before the judgment was delivered Bhargava J. passed away. On the 5th of January, 1953, Kidwai J. delivered the judgment of the Court. He signed it and dated it. The question as to whether the judgment was a valid one came up for consideration. While dealing with such a question, Bose J. spoke for the Court thus (at p. 196 of AIR) :-

"In our opin