S.B. Singh, J@mdashThe present special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.8.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 338 of 2014 [Vivekanand Tripathi and 07 others v. State of U.P. and others), whereby the prayer of the appellants to rectify the certificates of Diploma in Pharmacy issued to the appellants by incorporating therein the year in which the appellants appeared in the final year examination instead of the year in which they cleared the back papers has been declined and writ petition was dismissed. The facts, in nutshell, are that the appellants, before us, were admitted in the year 1999, 2000, 2001 for two years course of Diploma in Pharmacy in different Colleges recognized by the respondent No. 2 and were promoted to final year in the year 2000, 2001 and 2002. The appellants appeared in the final examination and credited back papers in one or two papers in their account. The Regulation No. 3 of The Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha (Admission, Conduct of Examination and Conferment of Certificates and Diplomas) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter to be called as ''Regulations, 1992'') provides that the special back papers were required to be held in the months of October and November but actually were held by the respondents only alongwith annual examination of next year i.e. 2003. The appellants were issued two mark sheets one showing passing year of 2002 and the other showing passing of back papers in the year 2003. The diploma certificates in favour of the appellants were also issued in the year 2003 in place of final examination year 2000, 2001 and 2002. The appellants applied for appointment as pharmacist pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.11.2007 published in a daily newspaper "Dainik Jagran" and issued by the Director, Medical and Health Service U.P. Lucknow. Their case for appointment was not considered as certificates issued to them were of the year 2003.
2. It appears that after the aforesaid advertisement the issue concerning the appointment to the post of Pharmacist in the State of U.P. travelled up to the Supreme Court and it was resolved by the order dated 3rd August, 2010. In contempt petitions filed by the concerned parties once again the issue was raised whether the appellants before Apex Court would be entitled to the same benefits as those diploma holders governed by the 1980 Rules having obtained their diplomas in Pharmacy after 1998. The Apex Court modified the order to the extent that the benefits be provided to all those pharmacists diploma certificate holders, who had obtained their diploma in Pharmacy up to year 2002. In these circumstances, the appellants before us who were awarded diploma certificates in the year 2003 are found out of fray in view of the Hon''ble Apex Court Judgment.
3. Challenging the action of the Board in treating the appellants of year 2003, the appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 alongwith another filed Writ Petition No. 65662 of 2012 (Vivekanand Tripathi and others v. State of U.P. and others) raising their grievances against the Board. The said petition was dismissed on 8.11.2013 on the ground that the petitioners have not obtained diploma up to year 2002 and, therefore, the directions of the Apex Court are apparently not applicable to their cases. The Special Appeal No. 1764 of 2013 was directed against the order dated 8.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge. The special appeal was decided on 5.12.2013 by the Division Bench of this Court with following observations:
It is clear from the orders of the Supreme Court that those, who are eligible up to the year 2002 having obtained diplomas in Pharmacy up to the year 2002 would be considered for selection batch wise. The petitioners having obtained their qualifications and eligibility in the year 2003 and not in the year 2002, are not entitled to the benefits flowing from the judgment of the Supreme Court to the diploma holders up to the year 2002.
4. The appellants No. 1 and 3 after losing their claim of appointment against the advertisement dated 12.11.2007 filed Writ Petition No. 338 of 2014 alongwith 5 others (appellants No. 4 to 8) for rectification of certificates of diploma by respondent No. 2. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on 26.8.2014 on two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioners have sought for rectification of certificates after expiry of a period of nearly 11 years of its issuance. Secondly, that after the order of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1764 of 2013, it is no longer available to the petitioners to seek for rectification of the certificates issued to them disclosing that they had secured the diploma in the year 2002 and not in the year 2003.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly come to the conclusion that after judgment in Special Appeal No. 1764 of 2013, the petitioners cannot seek relief for rectification of their certificates because the controversy involved in the aforesaid special appeal was entirely different and no relief was sought against the Board for correction of the year of diploma certificates. Further the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Regulation 16 in its entirety, where it is specifically provided that the candidates, who are eligible to appear in special back papers shall retain their term, was not taken into consideration alongwith the entire scheme of the Regulations. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has also not taken into consideration the Regulation 24.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellants got themselves admitted to two years diploma course in the year 1999, 2000 and 2001 and they appeared in the final examination in the year 2000, 2001 and 2002. The appellants credited one or two back papers in final year which they cleared in the year 2003 by appearing alongwith other candidates of final examination of the year 2003. Therefore, in view of Regulation 27 diploma certificates were issued in the year 2003. He further submitted that the diploma course was running on annual basis and earlier the examination was being conducted in the month of April and May for regular candidates alongwith private candidates and in the month of October and November examination was being held only for the candidates who had credited one or two back papers in final year. The Regulation 3(b) of the Regulations, 1992 provides that examination shall be held twice a year i.e. once in the month of April and May and other in the month of October and November or on such date as may be fixed by Examination Committee. A meeting of the Examination Committee was held on 6.1.1996 in which it was decided that the back papers examination scheduled to be held in the month of October and November be finished and the students eligible to back papers would be permitted to appear in the ensuing annual examination (April and May). A copy of the Resolution dated 6.1.1996 has been annexed as Annexure C.A-4 to the counter-affidavit. It appears that under the instructions of the Regulations, 1992, a five Member Examination Committee was constituted on 12.12.1995 and a meeting was convened on 6.1.1996. After a lot of deliberations, keeping in view the burden on Government Exchequer and inconvenience in conducting examination twice in a year, the Committee took a decision that if a candidate credits back papers in his account then he will be permitted to appear and clear in back papers alongwith final examination.
8. Although the resolution dated 6.1.1996 would not override the provisions of Regulations, 1992 but the appellants could not demonstrate before us that after the aforesaid resolution of the Committee, the back papers examination was conducted in the months of October/November in subsequent years to 1996 and onwards. The appellants took admission in the year 1999, 2000 and 2001. They appeared in final examination in the year 2000, 2001 and 2002. After crediting one or two back papers in their account in final examination, they appeared in final examination of the year 2003 and they cleared back papers without any protest. They also received their diploma certificates in the year 2003 without ventilating their grievances that certificates must relate back to the year 2002. They slept over the matter for a long time and for the first time, after advertisement dated 12.11.2007, the appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 alongwith another filed Writ Petition No. 65662 of 2012 which was dismissed on 8.11.2013. They preferred Special Appeal No. 1764 of 2013 which was dismissed on 5.12.2013 by a Division Bench of this Court. In the aforesaid writ petition and appeal the appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 had an occasion to ventilate their grievances but they failed. Thereafter, in the year 2014 the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 338 of 2014 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.8.2014.
9. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that prayer for correction of diploma certificates issued in the year 2003 was for the first time made in the year 2014 after a lapse of 11 years. It is, time and again, stated that the party who has slept over his right is not entitled to the discretionary relief of the High Court.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Prashant Srivastava v. C.B.S.E., decided on 7th September, 2000, wherein it was held that once the candidates passed supplementary examination of Class 12th the result of that would relate back to the first appearance in the said examination. But the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the present appeal. In the aforesaid decision, the petitioner appeared in class 12th examination in March 2000 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. Result of such examinations are normally announced at the end of May or in early June every year. However, Central Board of Secondary Education also conducts All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examinations (PMT) which is normally conducted before the Class 12th results are announced. Therefore, those who appeared in Class 12th examination are also allowed to take part in PMT examination even when the Class 12th results are not declared. Result of Class 12th examination was declared on 30th May, 2000. The Petitioner although secured 60 or more marks in four papers but in Biology, he secured only 42 marks. Passing marks for this subject being 45, he was given compartment in Biology and for this paper he appeared in supplementary examination which was held on 3rd August, 2000. The petitioner''s result of PMT was declared on 14th July, 2000 and the petitioner secured merit position/rank No. 117 in all India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2000. As per his merit list petitioner was to appear for allotment of seat by personal appearance in the first round of allotment which started on 2nd August, 2000. Since the supplementary examination result had not been declared and as per rules, the respondents did not allow the petitioner to participate in the allotment process in the first round. After declaration of result of the supplementary examination the petitioner secured 53 marks and he filed a petition before Delhi High Court with the prayer that he should be permitted to participate in the second round of allotment of seats.
11. In view of the above facts, the Delhi High Court has taken the view that the result declared after supplementary examination would relate back to the first appearance in the final examination of Class 12th examination. It was permissible as per the rules of the Board that after appearing in final examination of Class 12th the students will be entitled to appear in PMT examination. The aforesaid view was taken in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as about two lakh students appear in PMT examination and the petitioner secured merit position/rank No. 117. No such proposition of law was laid down that in all cases after supplementary result if a student clear supplementary examination that would relate back to the first appearance in the said examination. The judgment of Delhi High Court is judgment in personam.
12. No other law either of this Court or of the Apex Court was placed before us during submission. Learned counsel for the appellants is not able to show any specific regulation, which provides that if the examination of back papers are held in subsequent years, the certificates would relate back to the final examination year. In any view of the matter, the issue is highly debatable and is outside the purview of mistake apparent on record and deserves correction/rectification. A bare perusal of Regulations, 1992 also reveals that there is no provision which permits correction of certificates if a candidate clears back paper in subsequent year to the final examination held in preceding year.
13. In view of the above discussion, the laches is on part of the appellants in filing the petition at too belated stage after a lapse of 11 years. The settled proposition of law that no one can be permitted to reap the fruits of his own laches is against the appellants.
14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appellant have not made out a case for our interference. The appeal stands dismissed.
