2009 Supreme(J&K) 161
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Barin Ghosh,Sunil Hali, JJ.
Bilal Ahmad Wani & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
University Of Kashmir & Ors. - Respondent
LPA No. 43/2009 And IA (C) No. 85/2009
Decided On : 17 April, 2009
Advocate For Appellant: Z.A. Shah
Advocate For Respondent: J.A. Kawoosa
The Court clarified the obligations of the University in promoting students with backlogs as per Statute 15 and found no grounds to challenge the validity of the statute.
Headnote:
Statute 15 - University of Kashmir Degree Course for Bachelor of Engineering - Statute 11, Statute 15 - The court found Statute 15 to be valid legislation, allowing candidates to carry forward backlog papers and clarified the obligations of the University in promoting students with backlogs.
Fact of the Case:
The students sought Mandamus to appear in backlog papers of the 1st semester along with the 7th semester Examination. The University cited Statute 15 as a barrier. The Court found Statute 15 to be valid, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions and review petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no basis to challenge the legality of Statute 15 and declared it valid. The review petitions were dismissed as the Court could not change its interpretation of Statute 15.
Issues: Validity of Statute 15, maintainability of the joint single appeal against principal and review orders, interpretation of Statute 15's provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court clarified the obligations of the University in promoting students with backlogs as per Statute 15 and found no grounds to challenge the validity of the statute.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the Court issued a Mandamus directing the University to permit the students to appear in the backlog papers of the 1st semester Examination along with the 7th semester Examination.
2. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners in all the said three writ petitions have preferred a joint single appeal against the three principal orders passed in three writ petitions as well as against three review orders passed on three review petitions.
3. The respondent University has contended that such an appeal is not maintainable. To that, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the three principal orders and the three review orders are verbatim same and similar, including commas and full stops. The only difference is the change in the cause title of those orders. He submitted that in such situation, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the appellants, who were seeking to pursue a common cause against one single respondent, clubbed the appeals into one. Even assuming such an appeal is not maintainable, but it cannot be said that the appeal against one principal order passed in one writ petition and one review order passed in connection with the said writ petition is not maintainable. We, therefore, have jurisdiction to pronounce upon the issues raised in the appeal, at least, in connection with one of the writ petitions. The nature of issues is such that if we decide the same, the same would tantamount to declaration of the obligations of the University and, accordingly, everybody similarly situated to the appellant, whose appeal we are entitled to decide, will also be benefited thereby. Accordingly, we have decided not to be bogged down with the question whether the present appeal in respect of three principal orders and three review orders is maintainable or not.
4. For the purpose of conduct of examinations pertaining to degree course for Bachelor of Engineering, the University of Kashmir has framed Statutes. A look at Statute 11 would make it amply clear that the said course is divided into eight semes