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

2013 Supreme(Ori) 319

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
B.R.SARANGI, J.
Dr.(Smt.) Pranaya Ballari Mohanty - Petitioner
Versus
Utkal University and others - Opposite Parties
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 18138 of 2013
Decided On : 18.12.2013

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For petitioner: M/s.Sameer Kumar Das & S.K.Mishra
For opp. parties : M/s.T.N.Pattnayak & S.Pattnaik (for O.Ps. 1 & 2) M/s.K.K.Swain, S.C.D.Dash, & R.P.Das (for intervenor)

Headnote:1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Arts. 14, 16, 226 and 227 - Petitioner a student of Utkal University - She appeared at the I.A., B.A. and M.A. Examinations from the same University - Petitioner passed M.A. (Odia) Examination in 1986 securing 48.87% of marks - In order to enhance her marks in M.A. Examination, she appeared as a Non-Collegiate (Private) candidate in M.A. (Odia) in 1991 and passed the said examination in the year 1992 - She was appointed as a lecturer in Odia and thereafter she had acquired Ph.D. from Utkal University in the year 2001 - Due to some allegation made by some outsider her result in the repeat examination was cancelled after a lapse of 20 years - Writ - Duty cast on the University to make proper verification of the application and in the event it was found that the petitioner was not eligible to make application, then the same could have been rejected at the threshold - University on scrutiny of the application form permitted the petitioner to appear at the examination in 1991 and repeat examination in 1992 - Action taken at belated stage by the University after lapse of 20 years of publication of the result is hit by the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence - Authorities cannot unsettle the settled position by arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power and alter the position - No opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner - Held, cancellation of result of the petitioner in M.A. Odia Non-Collegiate Examination 1991 is vitiated - Impugned notifications quashed.

       The allegation made that the petitioner has suppressed material fact and misrepresented the University, is absolutely baseless in view of the fact that in all the applications, she furnished her registration number and on consideration of the same, she was permitted to appear at the examination. Therefore, the question of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner is absolutely misconceived. When application was filed indicating the registration number of the candidate, it is the duty of University to verify the same before allowing her to appear at the examination in question and merely on the basis of the allegation at the behest of third party, cancellation of the result of the petitioner after 20 years without giving any opportunity of hearing, is illegal and unjustified. (Paras - 6 to 15)

       2. ESTOPPEL - Action taken at belated stage by the University after lapse of 20 years of publication of the result is hit by the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. (Para - 12)

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the decision of the Examination Committee of the Utkal University dated 21.8.2012 in cancelling her result of M.A. (Odia) Non-Collegiate Examination, 1991 under Annexure-3 and the consequential resolution of the Syndicate dated 24.7.2013 and the notification dated 4.1.2013.

2. The petitioner’s case in nutshell is that after passing the Matriculation Examination, she got herself admitted in I.A. course in Christ College, Cuttack under the Utkal University and was enrolled as a student of Utkal University vide Registration No.28628/80. As per the University Regulation, once a student is allotted a registration number, the same is to be continued as his/ her identity till he/ she continues study under the University or takes migration certificate from the University. The petitioner appeared I.A., B.A. and M.A. Examinations with the said registration number. She secured 48.875% of marks in M.A. Examination, 1986 from Revenshaw College, Cuttack. But in order to enhance her percentage of marks in M.A. Examination, she applied to the Utkal University to appear the M.A.(Odia) Examination as a private candidate in the year 1991 with the same registration No.28628/80. On proper verification/ scrutiny of the records and the application form, the University had issued admit card to the petitioner and she was allowed to appear the M.A. Examination, 1991 and also in the year 1992 as a private candidate with Roll No. 2199P115 with registration No.28628/80 and passed the said examination securing 58.5% of marks vide Annexure-2 series. Considering her percentage of marks secured, she joined as a Lecturer in Odia as against 1st post in Lakheswar Womens’ College, Phulnakhara on 3.7.1995 and has been continuing as such in the said college. With the said percentage of marks in M.A. Examination, the petitioner was also allowed to complete her Ph.D Degree in the year 2001. The dispute arose when one Dr. Gitanjali Panda, who was appointed as a Lecturer in Odia against the 2nd post of the college, filed G.I.A. Case No. 809 of 2012 claiming seniority over the petitioner and block grant against the 1st post of Lecturer in Odia on the ground that the petitioner has not been validly appointed in the college and her result in M.A. (Odia) Non-Collegiate Examination, 1991 has been cancelled by the University referring to the letter dated 21.8.2012 under Annexure-3. The fact of such cancellation of the result only came to the knowledge of the petitioner on the basis of the counter filed by the University in G.I.A. Case No. 809 of 2012. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed challenging such decision of the Examination Committee of the University dated 21.8.2012 under Annnexure-3 and the consequential resolution of the Syndicate dated 24.7.2013 and the notification dated 4.11.2013 under Annexure-3A.

3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their counter affidavit admitting the fact that the petitioner had appeared M.A. Examination as a regular candidate from Revenshaw College in the year 1986 and passed the said examination securing 48.87% of marks and she had also appeared the M.A. (Odia) Non-Collegiate Examination, 1991 having Roll No. 2199P115 securing 433 marks out of 800 and repeat examination as a private candidate in the year 1992 securing 466 marks out of 800. It is stated that as per Clause 2 (A) (b) of the instruction issued by the Utkal University any registered student of the Utkal University who has passed M.A. Examination from Utkal University or some other University recognized by the Academic Council as equivalent thereto may be permitted to appear at the Part-I Examination of Master of Arts as Non-Collegiate (Private) candidate in any branch other than that in which he/she was previously examined. It is stated that the petitioner having suppressed the fact of her passing M.A. Examination previously as a regular candidate from Revenshaw College, she app













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