<JGN>Debangsu Basak</JGN>, J. - (1.) The petitioner has claimed that, he had taken the B.A. Part-I examination in Honours. According to the petitioner, he has obtained the pass marks in the Part-I examinations. He had participated in Part-II examination. He was allowed to do so by the university. The university having allowed him to take the Part-II examinations, it is obligatory for the university to publish such results. He has sought for a direction for publication of such results.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner had taken the Part-I examination after being issued an Admit Card for such purpose by the university. The petitioner was initially issued a mark-sheet for the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Part-I examination conducted the university authorities. Such mark-sheet initially had shown the petitioner to be absent in all the papers for the examination. On the petitioner pursuing the matter with the college authorities, the mark-sheet was subsequently modified and a mark-sheet as at page 21 of the writ petition was made over to the petitioner. Such mark-sheet discloses the marks obtained by the petitioner in the papers that he had appeared in the Part-I examination. He had obtained pass marks. He has submitted that, the hand written mark-sheet was attested by the Principal Secretary of the college. The petitioner had, therefore, nothing to suspect that, the mark-sheet issued in respect of the Part-I examination was not the correct mark-sheet. The petitioner had, thereafter, participated in the Part-II examination. The petitioner was allowed to do so after the petitioner had given a declaration to such effect. In this regard, he has referred to the first annexure to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the college authority. He has also referred to the second annexure to the affidavit of the university authorities. He has submitted that, the second annexure being the letter dated July 8, 2015 issued by the university authorities purporting to withdraw the admit card for the Part-II examination for the petitioner as a document brought into existence subsequently. He has referred to the date of the letter. He has submitted that, the letter is dated July 8, 2015 while the Part-II examinations were conducted subsequent thereto. He has further submitted that, in any event the petitioner was not served a copy of such letter. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon All India Reporter 1966 Supreme Court page 1313 (State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika) for the proposition that, passing of an order as contained in the letter dated July 8, 2015 of the university will not become effective unless it is made pubic or the same is communicated. In the present case, he has submitted that the petitioner was not communicated with the letter dated July 8, 2015. He has also relied upon All India Reporter 1976 Supreme Court page 376 (Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra) for the proposition that, once a candidate is allowed to take an examination rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the university to withdraw the candidature of the examinee has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity.
(3.) The writ petitioner has been opposed at the behest of the university authorities. Learned Advocate for the university has submitted that, the petitioner did not pass the Part-I examination entitling him to participate in the Part-II examination. He has also submitted that, it is the admitted fact that, the petitioner did not put his correct roll number in the answer scripts of the Part-I examinations. Consequently, the petitioner was not awarded any marks by the university. The hand written mark-sheet was not issued by the university. It does not bear any seal or signature of the university authorities. He has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the university authorities and has submitted that, the university authorities did not issue the hand written mark-sheet. The petitioner, therefore, could not have taken the Part-II examination. He has referred to the admit card issued for the Part-II examination and has submitted that, the admit card was issued on provisional basis. Subsequently, the university authorities having found that the petitioner did not pass the Part-I examination, his right to participate in the Part-II examination was withdrawn by the letter dated July 8, 2015. The petitioner had participated for the Part- II examination on the basis of an undertaking. He has referred to the undertaking. He has also referred to the letter dated September 19, 2016 passed by the Court as also the response thereto by the university authorities.;