JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Order dated 17.2.2020, passed by the Controller of Examination, Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’), whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been informed that his request for publication of result of BCA second semester examination (2011-2014), has been rejected, being beyond the regulations inasmuch as the petitioner had appeared in BCA second semester examination, after the time period prescribed under the Regulation IX (b) had expired.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had taken admission in Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA) Course in the Respondent-University for the academic session 2011-2014. The petitioner had appeared in the second semester examination held by the University in the month of October, 2012 and when the result was published, the petitioner found that he had failed in one subject, however, he had passed in the other subjects. After passing the 4th semester exam, the petitioner had filled examination form for the aforesaid one subject in which he had failed, which was accepted by the University and admit card was also issued in the month of June, 2016 and then, the petitioner had appeared in the exam held for the said subject in the year 2017 and had also passed in the said exam. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had appeared in all the 6 semester exams and had passed the same, but the final result of the petitioner was not published, showing the same to be pending inasmuch as the marks of second semester were awaited. The petitioner had approached the University several times for declaration of his result, but to no avail, hence, he had filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1533 of 2020, which was disposed of by an order dated 23.01.2020, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Controller of Examination of the Respondent University and the Controller of Examination was directed to dispose of the same. The petitioner had then filed a representation on 04.02.2020, however the same has been rejected by the impugned letter dated 17.02.2020.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Krishnan vs. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 311, paragraph no. 7 whereof is reproduced herein below:-

“7. It appears from the averments made in the counter-affidavit that according to the procedure prevalent in the college the admission forms are forwarded by the Head of the Department in December preceding the year when the examination is held. In the instant case the admission form of the appellant must have been forwarded in December 1971 whereas the examination was to take place in Apri1/May 1972. It is obvious that during this period of four to five months it was the duty of the university authorities to scrutinise the form in order to find out whether it was in order. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the university to see that the form complied with all the requirements of law. If neither the Head of the Department nor the university authorities took care to scrutinise the admission form, then the question of the appellant committing a fraud did not arise. It is well settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved. It was neither a case of suggestio falsi, or suppressio veri. The appellant never wrote to the university authorities that he had attended the prescribed number of lectures. There was ample time and opportunity for the university authorities to have found out the defect. In these circumstances, therefore, if the university authorities acquiesced in the infirmities