Back
1996 Supreme(Guj) 62
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.K.Abichandani
Rohan R.Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 8300 of 1996
Decided On : 02/02/1996
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Petitioner student of Dental college challenges impugned notification cancelling his result – Examination standing first in university in his batch - Impugned Notification was communicated to Dean of the College by University its letter only reason given for cancellation of petitioners result was that in provisional eligibility certificate which was issued in favor of petitioner was mentioned that would be eligible to appear in examination of Second - Petitioner was provisionally admitted in first term of second BDS course of batch on terms and conditions mentioned in Government resolution order Government had granted transfer of petitioner in first term of Second bds course transfer was allowed on petitioners paying transfer fees other hand contended that in provisional eligibility certificate which was issued by university in favor of petitioner there was a specific condition that petitioner could appear at Second BDS examination only months after of his admission in BDS class and that was being admitted for academic year – Held, Court in University reported in which it was held that University was stopped from refusing to declare result of appellants examination when was permitted to appear at pre-law and intermediate examinations and admitted to final year of course - In that case candidate while securing his admission in law college had admittedly submitted his mark-sheet along with application for admission but Law College had admitted him and had pursued his studies for two years - University had also granted him admission card for pre-Law and Intermediate Law examinations - He was permitted to appear at those examinations was only at stage of declaration of this result of Pre- law and Inter-Law examinations that university raised objection to his ineligibility to be admitted to Law course - It was held that University was clearly stopped from refusing to declare results of appellants examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course - In process it was held that plea that the Principal wrongly assured University authorities that had verified position and that all candidates were eligible would not be tenable – Petition allowed(Para 7)
( 1 ) ). The petitioner, a student of Dental college, challenges the impugned notification dated 25-5-1995 cancelling his result of Second BDS (Bachelor of Dental surgery) Examination which he passed in january 1995 standing first in the university in his batch. Under the impugned notification the earlier Notification dated 13-1-1995 was modified and the result of the petitioner was ordered to be treated as cancelled. The impugned Notification dated 25-5-1995 was communicated to the Dean of the College by the University under its letter dated 21-9-1995. In that letter the only reason given for cancellation of the petitioners result was that in the provisional eligibility certificate which was issued in favour of the petitioner it was mentioned that he would be eligible to appear in the examination of Second BDS which will be held 12 months after joining the Second BDS course and despite this condition, the petitioner had without the knowledge of the College and the university appeared in October 1994 at the second BDS examination, though due in may 1995 as per the said condition.
( 2 ) THE petitioner who had done his first bds course from the Buddha Institute of dental Science, Patna, took transfer to the government Dental College, Ahmedabad and started attending classes from January 1994 for the Second BDS course. The petitioner was provisionally admitted in the first term of the second BDS course of october batch 1993-94 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Government resolution dated 13-1-1994. Under that order the Government had granted transfer of the petitioner in the first term of Second bds course. The transfer was allowed on the petitioners paying transfer fees of Rs. 10,000/- before joining the Dental College, ahmedabad. It is thus clear that the petitioner joined first term of Second BDS course which commenced in November 1993. Thereafter, admittedly the petitioner was allowed to join the Second term from june 1994 to October 1994. After completion of that Second term the petitioner was allowed to appear at the second BDS examination which was held in November 1994. The result of the examination was declared on 13-1-1995 in which the petitioner was declared successful and according to him he stood first in his batch securing 416 marks out of 600 marks. Admittedly, without following any procedure the University proceeded to cancel the result of the petitioner by issuing the impugned Notification dated 25-5-1995, a copy of which seems to have been sent to the Dean by the University only on 21-9- 1995 for being served on the petitioner.
( 3 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned Notification was issued beyond a period of 3 months from the declaration of result on 13-1-1995 and therefore it contravened the provisions of the second part of Ordinance 146, of the ordinance framed by the respondent- university, which lays down that result of no candidate at any University examination shall be altered to his detriment after 3 months from the declaration of the result except when the case of such candidate falls under Ordinance 134 or 147. It was submitted that the respondent-University was estopped from now cancelling the result of Second BDS examination of the petitioner. Reliance was placed, in support of this submission, on the decisions of the supreme Court in the cases of Sanatan gauda v. Berhampur University reported in air 1990 SC 1075, A. Sudha v. University of Mysore reported in AIR 1987 SC 2305 and Smita Johnbhai v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1981 SC 1633. It was also submitted that the impugned Notification which adversely affected the petitioner was issued behind his back and without giving him any hearing whatsoever.
( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent-University on the other hand contended that in the provisional eligibility certificate which was issued by the university in favour of the petitioner there was a specific condition that the pet
