M.L.Bhat - (1.) THE petitioner prays for grant of writ of mandamus directing the University of Kanpur to declare the petitioner's result of BEd. class for the academic session 1985-86.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that after obtaining graduation in 1982 from the University of Kanpur she was admitted in B Ed. class for the session 1985-86 in Sri Narain Girls Degree College, Unnaon, affiliated to the Universitv of Kanpur It is stated by her that as required she had sent application in duplicate for admission, one copy was sent to the respondent no. 1 and the other was sent to respondent no. 2. THEreafter, a registered card is said to have been received by the petitioner which shows that she was admitted in B.Ed. Class in the said college. She was required to deposit the admission fee and was given roll number also. She is said to have deposited the admission fee as required. Copy of the receipt for the same is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. By Annexure-2 dated 13-12-155 she was informed by the College that the petitioner was being admitted and subjects mentioned in the letter were being allotted to her; She is said to have attended B. Ed. classes regularly. She was issued an identity card also by the respondent no. 2. Photostat copy of the same is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner was thereafter allowed to fill up the form for appearing in the final examination and admit card was also issued to the petitioner by the Registrar of the University, which is reflected by Annexure-4. She was allotted roll number also for the said examination. The petitioner appeared in the said examination but her results have not been declared though results of the other candidates were declared on 2-9-86. she is said to have approached the University for declaration of her result many times but no heed was paid to her request and her result remained undeclared- The petitioner is said to have moved an application on 15-2-87 which was forwarded by the Principal of the College to the University copy whereof is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The petitioner is said to have suffered irreparable loss by the arbitrary and malafide acts of the University in not declaring her result so far. A Counter affidavit is filed by respondent no 1 through its Assistant Officer Superintendent, Legal Cell. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was not validly selected for B. Ed. class in accordance with the Rules of the University. She cannot be said to be validly admitted candidate for the said course for the academic session 1985-86. For the acts of the Principal, whereby the petitioner had been issued identity card and permitted to attend the classes, it is contended that the University cannot be held to be bound by it. The University had never permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination or attend the classes. She was never allotted roll number by the University. However it is stated that her examination form was forwarded by the Principal alongwith forms of other candidates. The Deputy Registrar has mentioned in his letter dated 4-7-86 that she was not mentioned as a selected candidate in the list for admission of B. Ed. class and the admission of the petitioner appears to be against the rules. An examplanation is said to have been called for from the college. It was pointed out to the college that the petitioner was not selected in accordance with rules, therefore, it was not possible to declare her result. This communication was served on the Principal on 17-7-86. After petitioner's appearance in the examination the University has been raising objection repeatedly as to why the petitioner was admitted to the B Ed. course by the College.
(3.) IN her rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has refuted the allegations made in the counter-affidavit by the respondent no. 1 and has reiterated the facts asserted by her in the writ petition. It is stated that the Principal did not allot the roll number to the petitioner. The Roll number was allotted by the University and to prove this, a copy of the admit card of another candidate, namely Km Chetna Agnihotri is placed on record. The petitioner has stated that she has reliably heard that she has obtained 227/600 marks and in practical she has obtained 114/200 marks which entitle her to be declared as having passed the examination. It is stated that the University is bound to declare the petitioner's result. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has appeared in the examination after her examination form was scrutinized by the University and she was permitted to appear in the examination. Therefore, respondent no. 1 cannot be heard to say that admission of the petitioner was not valid. After being allowed to appear in the examination, respondent no 1 is not permitted to withhold the result of the petitioner. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on Shr. Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, 1976 (i) SCC 311. In this case a candidate was allowed to appear in L. L. B part II examination. After appearing in the examination he was informed that on account of short percentage in Part I his candidature stood cancelled. After having lost the petition in the High Court the petitioner in that case approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that power to withdraw candidature before the examination cannot be exercised after the candidate has appeared in the examination The petitioner also relied on Sushil Kumar Srivastava v. Principal ITI Faizahad 1982 UP LB EC 509. In this case the petitioners after having been admitted in Industrial Training Institute at Faizabad were not allowed to attend the classes. After some time they were told that their names have been struck out from the rolls of the Institute without giving them any opportunity That petitioners were liable to seek admission and they were admited in bona fide manner. Therefore, it was held that the striking out their names was bad and the petitioners were estopped from challenging the validity of their admission.;