SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Gau) 232

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
D.N.Baruah, B.N.Singh Neelam, JJ.
Rajesh Sundaram : Pubali Bordoloi : Ganesh Chandra Mandal -Appellant
Versus
Dibrugarh University and Ors. -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 3348, 424 and 3095 of 1993
Decided On : 22-12-1994

Advocates Appeared:
R.L.Das, N.C.Phukan, G.Uzir, G.N.Sahewalla, G.Gopal, B.Buragohain, A.K.Goswami

University regulations cannot be estopped, and students who fail to clear subjects within the prescribed number of chances are not entitled to appear in subsequent examinations.

Headnote:

UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS - APPEARANCE IN ARREAR SUBJECTS - NUMBER OF CHANCES - INTERPRETATION OF REGULATIONS - ESTOPPEL AGAINST STATUTE - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, students of Dibrugarh University, failed to clear certain subjects in their respective undergraduate courses within the prescribed number of chances as per university regulations. Despite appearing in subsequent examinations, their results were withheld by the university.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the university regulations clearly stipulated that students who failed to clear subjects within two chances after the first examination would not be entitled to appear in subsequent examinations. The petitioners had failed to clear their subjects within this period and were, therefore, not entitled to appear in the subsequent examinations.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to appear in subsequent examinations after failing to clear subjects within the prescribed number of chances as per university regulations? 2. Whether the university was estopped from withholding the petitioners' results despite allowing them to appear in the examinations?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the university regulations to mean that students who failed to clear subjects within two chances after the first examination would not be entitled to appear in subsequent examinations. 2. The court held that there could be no estoppel against a statute and that the university was not estopped from withholding the petitioners' results despite allowing them to appear in the examinations.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the university was justified in withholding the petitioners' results.

DN Baruah, J.—

All above three Civil Rules involve common questions of law and similar facts and, therefore, we propose to dispose of all the Civil Rules by a common judgment.

2. Writ petitioner in Civil Rule No. 3348 of 1993 was a student of DHSK Commerce College, under first respondent and completed three years Degree Course in Commerce Group leading to B. Com. Degree. He appeared in Part I of B. Com. examination on 25.5.90 conducted by the first respondent. The petitioner could not clear all the subjects and failed in 3 subjects, namely, Principles of Economics, Business Mathematics and Statistics and in Business Organisation and Management. In June, 1991 he appeared in the arrear subjects mentioned above. However, this time also he could clear only two subjects but failed in Business Mathematics and Statistics. In 1992 he appeared in Business Mathematics and Statistics subject. He appeared in B. Com. Part II examination which commenced from 24.7.92. The petitioner, however, could not pass the arrear subjects of B. Com. Part I and as such, the respondents withheld the result of the Part II examination. In 1993 he was allowed to sit in the B. Com. Part I examination to clear the arrear subjects. The said examination commenced on 5.5.93 and the petitioner appearded in the said arrear subject. Thereafter, on 27.9.93 the respondent issued mark sheet which showed that the petitioner had passed the arrear subjects i.e. Business Mathematics and Statistics of B. Com. Part I. But a cross mark had been put in the result column of the B. Com. Part I mark sheet. Situated thus, the petitioner brought the matter to the notice of the Principal, DHSK Commerce College, Dibrugarh and also to the respondents and submitted a representation requesting the authorities to announce the result of the Part II examination. Petitioner also wanted to know why he was not declared as 'Pass' as he had already passed the Part I examination as mentioned earlier. The respondents did not do anything. Hence the writ petition.

3. The case of the petitioner Pubali Bordoloi in Civil Rule No.424 of 1993 is that she was a student under the respondent No. 1. She studied B.A. 3 years' Degree Course. She first took honours and appeared in Part I examination in the year 1989, but as she could not clear the honours papers, she gave up honours and subsequently she appeared in Pass Course examination conducted by the respondent No. 1 in 1990 and she cleared all the papers except Alternative English and in that respect mark sheet was also issued by the University. Thereafter, the petitioner again appeared in the subject (Alternative English) in 1991. She could not clear the same. The petitioner also appeared in the subsequent year i.e. 1992 and cleared the same and in this respect a mark sheet was also issued by the Dibrugarh University-respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent for declaration of the result of the petitioner in respect of Part I BA examination inasmuch as she cleared all the subjects. But the respondents refused to issue such consolidated mark sheet or pass certificate.

As the petitioner cleared all the subjects inasmuch as she cleared the remaining subjects in the year 1990 and cleared Alternative English in 1992, she was entitled to get the result of Part I examination, but the respondents arbitrarily refused to give the results. In the meantime, she appeared in the examination of Part II also. According to this petitioner she duly appeared in the examination conducted by the University for which Admit Cards were issued and after appearance mark sheets were also issued by the respondents. But the respondents refused to issue a consolidated mark sheet showing the result of the petitioner which according to the petitioner is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and unjust. Hence the present petition.

4. Petitioner in Civil Rule No.3095 of 1993 also was a student of 3 years Degree Course in Arts Group and he was studying in Dhemaji College,

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top