Back
2007 Supreme(Gau) 686
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.
Gupendu Bikash Kar
Vs.
Tripura University
W.P. (C) No. 347 of 2006
Decided On: 08.10.2007
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.K. Bhowmik and S. Ghosh, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: P.K. Biswas, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that administrative action is subject to control by judicial review on grounds of 'illegality', 'irrationality', and 'procedural impropriety'. The court emphasized that unless there is palpable illegality, irrationality, or procedural irregularities, the court should not interfere with administrative action.
Headnote:
Result Publication - Education - Regulation 5.10(a) of B.Ed. Examination Regulations - The court discussed the prohibition imposed by Regulation 5.10(a) which required completion of each part of the examination within three consecutive years of the first entry into the course of study. The court found that the petitioner failed to complete the course within the stipulated period, and therefore, the depositing of examination fees and alleged permission granted by the Principal did not create a right enabling him to appear in the examination. The court also emphasized the principle of 'irrationality' and 'procedural impropriety' in administrative action and held that unless there is palpable illegality, irrationality, or procedural irregularities, the court should not interfere with administrative action. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it without any order of costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher, enrolled for a B.Ed. examination under distant education recognized by NCTE. He sought a direction for the publication of his examination results, which were withheld by the university. The university contended that the petitioner failed to complete the course within the stipulated period as per Regulation 5.10(a) and therefore, was not eligible to appear for the examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to complete the course within the stipulated period as per Regulation 5.10(a) and therefore, the depositing of examination fees and alleged permission granted by the Principal did not create a right enabling him to appear in the examination. The court emphasized the principle of 'irrationality' and 'procedural impropriety' in administrative action and held that unless there is palpable illegality, irrationality, or procedural irregularities, the court should not interfere with administrative action. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it without any order of costs.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were whether the petitioner was eligible to appear for the examination as per Regulation 5.10(a) and whether the university's action of withholding the examination results was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Regulation 5.10(a) which required completion of each part of the examination within three consecutive years of the first entry into the course of study. The court also emphasized the principle of 'irrationality' and 'procedural impropriety' in administrative action and held that unless there is palpable illegality, irrationality, or procedural irregularities, the court should not interfere with administrative action.
Final Decision: The court found that the petitioner failed to complete the course within the stipulated period as per Regulation 5.10(a) and therefore, the petition lacked merit. The court dismissed the petition without any order of costs.
U.B. Saha, J.
1. The Petitioner, an honours Graduate Teacher in a Government Aided School, enrolled himself for appearing Bachelor of Education ('B.Ed.') examination under distant education recognized by NCTE, filed the present writ petition for a direction to the Respondents, Tripura University and Others for publishing the result of Paper-III of Part-I of B.Ed. held on 21.1.2006 as well as for publication of the result of all the papers, of B.Ed. Part-II examination held in the year 2005.
2. The moot questions arise before this Court for decision are whether this Court has the power to direct the educational institution like the University to publish the result of a candidate, who was allowed to sit for examination without authority, while no admit card was issued for his appearance and to sit in the said examination and also for directing the Respondent University to allow the Petitioner for appearing again in paper-III of Part-I of the said examination violating its own rules and regulations.
3. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Counsel for the Respondent University and others.
4. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the Petitioner being a graduate teacher working in a Government Aided School, enrolled himself for appearing in the B.Ed. examination under distant Education recognized by NCTE on 7.4.2002 and he appeared in the Part-I examination of the B.Ed. in the year 2003, but, he could not succeed. However, he again appeared in 2004 for the said Part-I examination and he could pass two out of four subjects. In such a situation, the Petitioner again opted to sit for both B.Ed. (Distant) Part -I of 2004, along with back paper, namely paper-III and Paper II of the Part-I of 2003 as a combined candidate. But, he did not appear Paper-III of Part-I examination and he appeared only in B.ED. Part-II examination as well as Paper-II of Part-I examination of the said course in the year, 2005 with the hope that the said paper-III would be cleared on the basis of his pending review application. As he did not succeed in paper-III of part-I, the result of B.Ed. Part-II examination held in 2005 had been withheld from publication of its result. At this juncture the Petitioner prays for allowing him to appear in part-I examination of the said course to be held in 2006 for paper III as a supplementary candidate by way of filing an application on 24.9.2005 and he was also allowed to appear in the said examination by the authority after issuing examination forms on 28.10.2005 and accordingly Petitioner submitted examination form duly filled in along with examination fees by way of bank draft and the Respondents duly received the said fees and the form and the authority issued receipt acknowledging the same and allowed the Petitioner to appear in the part-I examination of the said course for paper-III which was held on 21.1.2006. Though the result of B.Ed. Part-I examination was published by the authority of the University, the result of the Petitioner in respect of his examination in paper-III of Part-I B.Ed. course as well as the result of all his subjects for B.Ed. Part-II examination held in the year, 2005 were withheld. Being aggrieved by the action of the Respondent, University, he sought for justice by issuing notice dated 18.8.2006 for publication of his result, but the Respondents did not publish the same though they were under obligation to do that, hence, the instant writ petition for a direction as indicated supra.
5. The Respondent No. 1/Tripura University and other Respondents resisted the prayer of the Petitioner by way of filing a detailed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that the Respondents have not infringed any of the legal or constitutional right of the Petitioner as protected by Article 14 of the Constitution. Petitioner, being enrolled under the Distant Education for prosecuting the course of B.Ed. (distant)
