R.L. Anand, J.@mdashShri Jai Singh has filed the present writ petition against the University and its Controller of Examinations under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking directions of this Court in the nature of mandamus and has prayed for quashment of the order Annexure P10 dated 2.4.1996. He has further prayed that he had the right to appear in examination of B.A. 2nd year and B.A. 3rd year in Punjabi (Elective) and History, which were to be commended from April 19,1996, on the basis of his having passed B.A. 1st Year Examination in Punjabi (Elective) and History.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that on 24.4.1985 University Grant Commission recommended that Three Year Degree Course in Bachelor of Science (Physical Education, Health Education and Sports) be designated as Degree in Bachelor of Science (Physical Education, Health Education and Sports) and held that the products of this Course are eligible for admission to B.Ed., P.Ed. etc. In the year 1989, University framed regulations governing the Three Year Degree Course in Physical Education, Health Education and Sports which provided that the said qualification of B.Sc. (Physical Education, Health Education and Sports) is at par with other three years degree courses like B.A., B.Sc. and B.Com. On 12.4.1992, the Senate granted provisional affiliation in the course(s)/subject(s) in favour of G.H.G. Khalsa College, Gurusar Sadhar for running 3 years degree course in Physical Education, Health Education and Sports w.e.f. the session 1991-92 and the petitioner joined the said Course run by the Punjab University at the said College in July, 1992. He appeared in the 3rd Year Examinations of B.Sc. (Physical Education, Health Education and Sports) and obtained 1270 marks out of 2400 marks. In October, 1995 he appeared in additional subjects of Punjabi (Elective) and History in B.A. Part-I Examinations and obtained 206 marks out of 400 and was declared pass as is evident from document Annexure P5. In pursuance of his declaration of result he deposited admission fee for appearing in 2nd year and 3rd year examinations of additional subjects of Punjabi (Elective) and History and the deposits were made on 8.12.1995 and 15.12.1995. But unfortunately for the petitioner the Controller of Examinations informed him on 12.2.1996 that he was not eligible to appear as he had not passed B.A. from Punjab University. The petitioner made representation in the month of March, 1996, but the same was declined vide intimation dated 2.4.1996 by the respondent No. 2 and it was stated that he was not eligible to appear in the additional papers as he had not passed B.A. in full subjects. With this background the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of above writs.
3. The notice of writ petition was given to the respondents. A written statement was filed on behalf of Punjab University. According to the University, as per Regulation 26 at page 55 of the Punjab University Calendar, Vol. II, 1995, the candidates who have passed B.A./B.Sc. examination are eligible to appear in any one or more additional subjects prescribed for the examination except the subject in which they have already passed the examination. It was also the stand of the University that allowing of the petitioner to appear in B. A. Ist year is no ground to debar the University from rejecting the admission of the petitioner because he was not qualified for the 2nd and 3rd year. It, is also the stand of the respondent-University that the Course of B.Sc. (Physical Education, Health Education and Sports) falls under the faculty of Education and not under the faculty of Arts and Science, and, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for the examinations of 1st, 2nd and 3rd year of additional subjects of Punjabi (Elective) and History of B.A. standard. In short, the stand of the respondent was that the petitioner was not eligible because he had not passed B.A. or B.Sc. from the Punjab University and so he was not entitled to appear in the additional subjects.
4. I have heard Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for the inaction, if any, on the part of the authorities of the respondent-University. The petitioner has never misled the respondent-authorities at any point of time nor it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner tried to deceive the University or tried to conceal some information. When the respondents had allowed the petitioner to appear in Part-I examinations of additional subjects of Punjabi (Elective) and History of B.A. standard, if is too late for them to say that the petitioner is not eligible to undertake the examinations of 2nd and3rd year of the said subjects. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon
"Once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear."
The ratio of this judgment is fully applicable in the present case. It is the common case of the parties that the respondent-University started the Course of B.Sc. (Physical Education, Health Education and Sports) and this Course could be undertaken by a student after passing +2, This Course is of three years. Meaning thereby that after passing the matriculation examination the petitioner has undertaken 5 years study i.e. 2 years in +2 and 3 years therafter. Even an ordinary graduate also takes 5 years while getting B.A. degree after passing matriculation examination. The petitioner never concealed any fact. He applied for the additional subjects. His application must have been scrutinised by the University. It was never rejected. It was never pointed out to the petitioner that he is not eligible to appear in Part-I Examination of additional subjects. Rather his result was declared and he was declared successfully by securing 206 marks out of 4000. In this view of the mater, a candidate can always expect that there is no handicap if he undertakes the examination of 2nd and 3rd year. I do not dispute with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the Course undertaken by the petitioner falls within a different category, but the basic point for consideration is where the fault lies, if any. Whether it lies on the part of the petitioner and whether there is inaction or negligence on the part of the respondent-authorities. The answer is to put the blame upon the officials of the University. Then the question is why the petitioner should suffer. The rules of natural justice, equity and fair play also demand that the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer for the fault of the University. Of course, the interest of the University can be protected by observing that this judgment will not become a precedent for future. The petitioner has undertaken the examinations of 2nd and 3rd year but his result is being withheld due to the pendency of this writ petition.
6. In this view of the matter, I allow this writ petition by quashing the order dated 2.4.1996 Annexure P10 and direct the respondent-University to declare the result of 2nd and 3rd year of the petitioner of the additional subjects of Punjabi (Elective) and History of B.A. standard within 8 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
It is hereby clarified that this judgment is only confined to the controversy of the present writ petition and will not be considered as a precedent for future because I am allowing this writ petition on the ground that the University has not been able to point out the defect to the petitioner at earlier stage.
7. Petition allowed.
