JUDGMENT - Vazifdar S.J., J.:---The petitioner is a student of architecture pursuing the B. Arch Course in the second respondent college. Respondent No. 2 is the Vivekananda Institute of Technologys Padmabhushan Dr. Vasantdada Patil College of Architecture. Respondent No. 2 is affiliated to respondent No. 1.

2. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to withdraw its letter cancelling his admission to the 4th year of the B. Arch. Course for the academic year 2000-2001 and cancelling his examination forms for the 4th and 5th years of that course, to forthwith declare his results for the 4th year (seventh semester) and for the 5th year (eight semester) and to withdraw its letter dated 4th May, 2001.

3. The petitioner finds himself in a predicament caused by the inadvertence of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 went unrepresented before us. Respondent No. 1 admits that at least two acts on its part were incorrect but claims that they were through inadvertence. If the construction of the 1st respondent of the rules and requirements are correct and if they were to be enforced strictly despite the "inadvertence" on the part of the respondents the petitioner stands to lose three to four years for no fault of his and despite the fact that he has now fulfilled all the requirements necessary to have his results declared.

4. In 1997 and 1998 the petitioner was admitted to and successfully completed the first and second years of the B.Arch course. In 1999-2000 he was admitted to the 3rd year. He appeared for 3rd year exams in April/May 2000. His results were declared on 22nd June, 2000. He failed in four theory subjects. He applied for revaluation immediately. He was granted provisional admission by respondent No. 2 to the 4th year as he had applied for revaluation. The revaluation result was not declared even by November 2000 when the next round of exams were to be held. Understandably therefore the petitioner out of abundant caution, in the event of his being declared unsuccessful even after revaluation at the third-year examination, once again appeared for the 3rd year examination. In November 2000 the petitioner was therefore permitted by respondent No. 2 to appear for 3rd year and the 4th year examinations. He was so permitted as he had successfully completed the 4th year course which consisted of only practicals and a single semester.

On 4th December, 2000 the revaluation results were declared. There was no change in the petitioners marks for the third-year. However on 21st January, 2001 the result of the third-year examination held in November 2000 were declared. The petitioner passed the examination, his results were declared by respondent No. 1 who also issued and forwarded to respondent No. 2 the marks-sheet.

5. On 23 January, 2001 respondent No. 1 declared the 4th year exam results. There is some dispute here between the parties regarding the declaration of the petitioners results by respondent No. 1. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that respondent No. 1 had not declared the petitioners results, as the petitioner having failed in the third-year examination in his initial attempt was not eligible to appear for the 4th year examination held in November 2000. In fact, he submitted that the petitioners provisional admission in June 2000 to the 4th year stood cancelled automatically upon the result of the revaluation having shown no change in the petitioners case. He based this submission on the rules under which the admission being provisional stood cancelled as a result of the petitioner not having passed the third-year in the revaluation. We will presume that the rules so provide.

6. Mr. Kulkarni however admitted that respondent No. 1 did forward to respondent No. 2 its ledger containing details of the marks of all the students including those of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 admittedly furnished the petitioner a copy of the printout/extrac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document