JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner in the present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking a direction upon the respondent B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura (for short the University) to declare her result of Bachelor of Arts in Psychology (Hons.) Part-III Examination, 2018 held in 2019. It is her grievance that though the result was published but her result has been withheld.

2. Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was admitted in B.A. (Hons.) course in the session 2012-13 with her Registration No. 53549/2013. She appeared in B.A. Part-I (Hons.) Examination, 2013, but she failed. In 2014, she did not appear in B.A. Part I examination. She appeared in B.A. Part I examination in 2015 and obtained 12 marks in R.B. (Rashtrabhasha) Hindi and 6+19= 25 marks in Psychology (two papers) and 34 marks in practical and was thus declared disqualified. She again appeared in B.A. Part I examination in the year 2016 only in R.B. Hindi and did not appear in Honours papers. She had scored 33 marks in R.B. Hindi. In the year 2017, she appeared in B.A. Part I examination and obtained 37+40 = (2 papers of Psychology). Her appearance in B.A. Part I examination in 2017 itself was in contravention of the Examination Regulation of the University, specifically Clause 7.1 thereof, which provides that if a student fails to appear in examination for not more than two subjects in B.A. (General/Honours) Part I/II examination he/she shall be promoted to the next higher class but shall not be eligible for admission to B.A. (General) or B.A. (Hons.) Part III class unless he/she passes B.A. (General) or B.A. (Hons.) Part I examination in the subject concerned. It further provides that the facility for appearing in such carry over subject/subjects shall be available for a student at not more than three consecutive examinations.

3. It is the case of the University that the petitioner was entitled to appear in B.A. Part I examinations in the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 by virtue of the Examination Regulation. She was debarred from appearing in the examination in the year 2017 and accordingly her result has not been published.

4. I have heard Mr. Umesh Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the University.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that once the petitioner was allowed to appear in B.A. Part III Examination, 2018, her result could not have been withheld by the University on technical grounds. He has placed reliance on Supreme Court’s decision in case of Shri Krishan vs. Kurukshetra University, 1976 (1) SCC 311. He has, however, not been able to dispute the factual aspect that in terms of Regulation 7.1 of the Examination Regulations the petitioner was not eligible to appear in Part III examination as she had not cleared B.A. Part I examination.

6. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University opposing the petitioner’s claim has relied on Division Bench Decision of this Court rendered on 07.01.2015 in L.P.A. No. 904 of 2014 (Mihir Kumar Jha vs. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University). Reliance has also been placed on another Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Sunil Kumar vs. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University and Others, 2020 (4) PLJR 129. Reference has also been made to a decision of this Court rendered on 04.01.2021 in CWJC No. 7882 of 2020 (Md. Helal vs. State of Bihar and Others).

7. Considering the nature of controversy, it would be apt to notice Regulation 7.1 of the Examination Regulation of the University which reads as under:

“7.1 There shall be University examination at the end of the first, the second and the third years of study to be known respectively as the B.A. (General/Honours) Part I Part II and Part III examination. No student shall be admitted to the B.A. (General) or B.A. (Honours) Part II class unless he has passed the B.A.