The court emphasized that the proposition that the University is precluded from holding back a result of a candidate if allowed to sit and participate in the examination is not of universal application.

JUDGMENT :

1. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The petitioner was student of Bachelor of Science (Hons), Chemistry in R.K.K. College, Purnea. The examination for the course is held in three parts. The petitioner had passed Part-I examination in 2014. In Part-II examination held in 2015, he appeared but failed in Chemistry (Hons,) and Mathematics (Subsidiary). He again appeared in Part-II examination in 2016 but again failed in Chemistry (Hons.) paper though, this time he could clear his mathematics (subsidiary) paper. In 2017 he did not appear in B.Sc. Part-II examination. The petitioner had though failed in B.Sc. Part-II examination in 2015, he was granted promotion to Part-III of the course under Examination Regulations of the University. He had taken admission in B.Sc. Part-III in the same year but he did not appear in Part-III examination held in 2016,2017 and 2018. He appeared in B.Sc Part-III examination in the year 2019. His result of B.Sc. (Hons.) Part-III examination is not being published by the affiliating University, viz, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura.

2. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has filed this writ application, seeking following directions:-

“i. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for giving direction to the respondents concerned to declare the final result of the petitioner’s complete course (Bachelors in Science) which got completed in January, 2020.

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent University to issue the mark sheet and the degree of the petitioner after the declaration of result which has been kept in pending by the University.”

3. It is the petitioner’s case that due to various reasons including his sickness and the accident which he had met, he had missed to appear and had failed also when he appeared in Part-II examination. It is the petitioner’s case that once he was allowed to appear in Part-III examination, his final result ought to have been declared.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University and relying on Regulation 7.1 of the Examination Regulation of the University, it is being contended that no student can be admitted in B.Sc. (General) Part-III or B.Sc. (Hons.) Part-III Class unless he has passed the B.Sc.Part-II examination. It, however, provides that if a student fails in, or fails to appear at, not more than two subjects at the B.Sc. (General/Honours) Part-I/II examination, he shall be permitted to the next higher class but he shall not be eligible for admission to Part-III class unless he hs passed the B.Sc. (Hons.) part-I examination in the subjects concerned. It further provides that “this facility for appearing in such carry over subject/subjects shall be available to a student at not more than three consecutive examination.

5. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that once the petitioner was allowed to appear in the third Semester examination, his result could not have been withheld on the ground that he was not eligible to appear in the said examination in terms of the Examination Regulation. He has placed heavy reliance on Supreme Court’s decision in case of Shri Krishan Vs. Kurukshetra University, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 311, in support of his contention that if the University allowed a candidate to sit and participate in the examination, they are precluded from holding back the result of a candidate. It is to be noted that the petitioner does not dispute the position that in terms of the Examination Regulation, he was not eligible to appear in Part-III examination.

6. The question as to whether the University may withhold result of a candidate who was allowed or managed to appear in an examination contrary to Examination Regulation had arisen in similar circumstance before this Court in case of Mihir Kumar Jha Vs. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University (CWJC No. 21660 of 2013). Dealing with th