1987 Supreme(Pat) 98

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia, Lalit Mohan Sharma and S.Shamsul Hasan JJ.
Amarendra Pratap Singh
Versus
Lalit Narain Mithila University
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2445 of 1986 ; 2953 of 1986 ;
Decided On : APRIL 1, 1987

Headnote:

MANDAMUS - COMPASSION - UNAFFILIATED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION - EXAMINATION RESULT - STATUTORY PROVISIONS - UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS - ESTOPPEL - FRAUD - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - NATIONAL WASTAGE OF SEAT - SCHEDULED CASTE CANDIDATE - CONTROL OVER NON-GOVERNMENT PHYSICAL TRAINING COLLEGE AND TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE AND PRIMARY TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE ACT, 1982 - REGULATION 18 OF CHAPTER II OF THE REGULATIONS - REGULATION 37 OF CHAPTER II OF THE REGULATIONS - EDUCATIONAL EQUIPMENT - ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER - QUASI-JUDICIAL - ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION - ILLEGAL REVIEW OF DECISION - ASSUMPTION OF GUILT - CANCELLATION OF CANDIDATURE - NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY - FINDINGS ON FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS - IMPLIED MODIFICATION OF EARLIER UNIVERSITY LAW - REFUSAL TO PUBLISH RESULT WITHOUT CANCELLING CANDIDATURE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were students of an unrecognised and unaffiliated educational institution. They were allowed to sit in the Bachelor of Education examination in 1980 by the respondent University as private candidates and admit cards were also issued to them by the University on a provisional basis. Though the petitioners had been able to pass the said examination successfully, their result was not being declared on the ground that their applications were not in confirmity with the requirement of law and University Regulations which, inter alia, required payment of additional amount of Rs. 25/- as permission fee. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a mandamus that the respondents be directed to publish the petitioners result forthwith.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that allowing students of unaffiliated and unrecognised institutions to appear in examination primarily on grounds of compassion would be encouraging and condoning the establishment of such unauthorised institutions and is tantamount to an unwarranted exercise of the writ jurisdiction by the Courts. The Court further held that the petitioners cannot claim the relief of a writ of mandamus for the declaration of their result as there can possibly be no estoppel against the statute itself because both the law and the University Regulations having the force of law create a frontal bar against the petitioners being permitted to take the examination. The Court also held that the University has no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant and that the University had acted erroneously but the High Court cannot possibly mandate something contrary to law, or the perpetuation of an illegality.

Issues: 1. Whether compassion for an unfortunate student of an unrecognised and unaffiliated educational institution warrants a mandamus for the declaration of his examination result contrary to the statutory provisions and University regulations? 2. Whether, after the respondent University, on taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances, decided the issue of eligibility of the candidates in their favour and demanded from the petitioners additional fees on that basis, which were paid, the University is estopped from reviewing its decision to the serious disadvantage of the petitioners? 3. Whether, in absence of specific allegation of any act or omission on the part of the petitioners by the respondents either in their counter-affidavit filed before this Court or made at any point of time anywhere else, the petitioners can be assumed to be guilty of fraud merely on the basis of a vague and unsubstantiated statement in the counter-affidavit that the "Principal of the Government College in collusion with the students and Principal of the proposed Training College in question, forwarded the names of the students to sit" at the examination? 4. Whether, Regulation 18 of Chapter II of the University Regulations providing for cancellation of the candidature of an examinee on certain conditions, by necessary implication, requires holding of an enquiry with notice and opportunity to the concerned examinee to place his case? 5. Whether, it is essential to record a finding on the fulfillment of the prescribed condition before cancelling the candidature under Regulation 18? 6. Whether Sec.2 of Bihar Ordinance No. 61 of 1978 puts an absolute bar on the power of the University to permit private candidates to sit at the examination, and whether consequently the earlier University law got impliedly modified? 7. Whether, the refusal to publish the result of the petitioners without cancelling their candidature is illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Compassion for an unfortunate student of an unrecognised and unaffiliated educational institution does not warrant a mandamus for the declaration of his examination result contrary to the statutory provisions and University regulations. 2. The University is not estopped from reviewing its decision to the serious disadvantage of the petitioners, after taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances, deciding the issue of eligibility of the candidates in their favour and demanding from the petitioners additional fees on that basis, which were paid. 3. In absence of specific allegation of any act or omission on the part of the petitioners by the respondents either in their counter-affidavit filed before this Court or made at any point of time anywhere else, the petitioners cannot be assumed to be guilty of fraud merely on the basis of a vague and unsubstantiated statement in the counter-affidavit that the "Principal of the Government College in collusion with the students and Principal of the proposed Training College in question, forwarded the names of the students to sit" at the examination. 4. Regulation 18 of Chapter II of the University Regulations providing for cancellation of the candidature of an examinee on certain conditions, by necessary implication, requires holding of an enquiry with notice and opportunity to the concerned examinee to place his case. 5. It is essential to record a finding on the fulfillment of the prescribed condition before cancelling the candidature under Regulation 18. 6. Sec.2 of Bihar Ordinance No. 61 of 1978 puts an absolute bar on the power of the University to permit private candidates to sit at the examination, and consequently the earlier University law got impliedly modified. 7. The refusal to publish the result of the petitioners without cancelling their candidature is illegal.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 500.00 payable by the University. The University authorities were directed to publish the result of the petitioners without any further delay.