R.A.Sharma - (1.) PETITIONER as a regular student of Janta Mahavidvalaya Ajitmal, Etwah, appeared in B. Sc. Part I examination of 1988, conducted by the Kanpur University in which he was declared successful and was issued mark sheet by the University showing him as passed. On the basis of that mark sheet, the petitioner was given admission in B. Sc. Part II in the same college and in the year 1989 he appeard in B Sc. Part II examination. But the petitioner's result of B. Sc. Part II was not declared by the University on the ground that he has not passed B. Sc. Part I examination and was erroneously declared, passed on account of wrong mark sheet issued inadvertently by the University. Thereupon the petitioner made representation before the Registrar for permission to appear in the subject of B. Sc. Part I in which he has failed and also sent reminders in this connection; but no reply was . received by him from the University authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for declaration of his result of B. Sc. Part II examination and for quashing the order, if any, withholding his result of B. Sc. Part II examination.
(2.) AFTER the counter and rejoinder affidavits were exchanged by the parties, the petitioner moved an application before this court for permission to appear in B. Sc. Part III examination scheduled to commence from 21-6- 1990. As this matter could not be disposed of before vacation, this court on 26-5-1990 gave liberty to the learned counsel for the petitioner to approach the vacation Judge for appropriate relief. Petitioner's application for interim relief, as such, has came up before me. I heard learned counsel for the parties on 6-6-1990 on which date the case was adjourned for 8-6-1990, as the counsel for both the parties requested for disposal of the writ petition itself on 8-6-1990. I heard learned counsel again on 8-6-1990 and the writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with the rules of the Court. Mark sheet of B. Sc. Part I examination, issued to the petitioner by the University, has been filed as Annexure I to the writ petition in which mark obtained in Mathematics has been encircled and the petitioner was declared pass. This mark sheet was signed by competent officer. It is not disputed that this mark sheet is a genuine mark sheet issued by the Kanpur University. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University before this court, it has been averred that the mark sheet appears to have been issued due to inadvertence or manipulation, and the petitioner was inadvertently admitted by the college in B. Sc Part II on the basis of the incorrect mark sheet. It is nowhere alleged in the counter affidavit that there was any hand of the petitioner in the preparation of the mark sheet. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties that this mark sheet was issued by the University due to inadvertence for which the petitioner is in no way responsible. On the basis of the mark sheet the petitioner joined B. Sc. Part II studied for the whole year in the college as a regular student, spent time and money and thereafter appeared in B. Sc. Part II examination, and according to him he has passed in this examination also but his result has been withheld. If the examination of the petitioner of B. Sc. Part II is allowed to be cancelled by the University, the petitioner will lose two years inasmuch as he will have to appear in B. Sc. Part I and thereafter B. Sc. Part II examination. It will be too harsh for the petitioner and will adversely affect his career. The question for consideration before me is as to who is to be punished and who is to suffer for the mistake of the University in issuing incorrect mark sheet. Mistakes can be corrected by the authorities at any time provided some other person has not changed his position on the basis of those mistakes. Equities are to adjusted in favour of one who will suffer most, if the mistakes are permitted to be corrected. No body will be allowed to suffer for the mistakes of others. In all fairness the University is to be estopped from refusing to declare the result of B. Sc. Part II of the petitioner.
(3.) IN Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University, JT 1990 (2) 57, University withheld the result of a student of pre law and INter Law examinations on the ground that he secured less than minimum marks in M. A. and was, as such, not elegible for admission to the Law course. Honourable Supreme Court held that student was admitted to Law course on the basis of the mark sheet issued by the University and the student cannot be punished for the negligence of the University authorities. The relevant extract from the judgment is quoted below : "This is apart from the fact that I find that in the present case the appellant while securing his admission in the Law College had admittedly submitted his marks sheet along with the application for admission. The Law College had admitted him He had pursued his studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admission card for the pre law and intermediate Law examinations. He was permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to the Final year of the Course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the Pre Law and INter law examinations that the University raised the objection to his so called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law course. The University is, therefore, clearly estopped from refusing to declare the result of the appellant's examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course." It was further observed that a student cannot be punished for the negligence of the University authorities and it was the bounded duty of the University to have scrutinised the matter thoroughly before permitting the appellant to appear at the examination and not having done so it cannot refuse to publish his result. A learned single Judge of this Court in Bundel Khand University v. Laxmi Narain Yadav, 1983 UP LB EC 226, and a Division Bench in Rajnath Singh Yadav v. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, 1987 All. LJ 388 have in the similar circumstances quashed the orders cancelling the result on the ground of promissory estoppel and delayed action.;