- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gorakh Nath Singh v. Dr. Harisingh Gour University, Sagar And Another
Summary of Judicial Opinion (Faizanuddin, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, a regular student admitted to M.A. (Previous) linguistic in 1984 at the respondent-University (University of Sagar), appeared in and passed the M.A. (Previous) examination in 1985. For the final year the petitioner applied to appear as a Non-Collegiate/Private candidate in the M.A. (Final) examination to be held in April/May 1986; the University issued an Admission Card and the petitioner appeared in the examination.
The respondent-University thereafter, by orders dated 31-5-1986 and 26-6-1986 (Annexures P-4 and P-6), withheld the petitioner's M.A. (Final) result. The petitioner filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking writs of certiorari to quash those orders and mandamus directing the University to declare his M.A. (Final) (linguistic) result.
In its return the University alleged the petitioner had been in regular employment as a Lecturer at Mahatma Gandhi Intermediate College, Sultanpur (U.P.) since 1984-85, making it practically impossible for him to have attended the requisite classes in Sagar and to have secured the mandatory attendance percentage. The University relied on Ordinance No. 6 attendance and residency provisions and asserted an enquiry was pending; it also contended the petitioner had not proved bona fide residence within the University’s territorial jurisdiction for eligibility as a private candidate.
The petitioner filed a rejoinder with an affidavit denying the adverse allegations and produced a certificate (Annexure P-C dated 4-8-1986) from the Principal of his employing institution stating he availed leave to attend classes during 1984-85.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent-University was legally entitled to withhold the petitioner's M.A. (Final) result after having issued an admission card and permitted him to appear in the examination.
- Whether the petitioner was ineligible to appear as a Non-Collegiate/Private candidate for M.A. (Final) on the grounds of non-residence within the University's territorial jurisdiction and/or for failing to satisfy prescribed attendance requirements.
- Whether the petitioner committed suppression or fraud (by not disclosing employment or residence) that would justify cancellation of his candidature or withholding of result under the University Ordinances.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Once an admission card was issued and the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination, it should be presumed that all eligibility requirements had been met and any deficiencies were either nonexistent or had been condoned; therefore the University could not later withhold or cancel his result on attendance grounds.
- The petitioner denied suppression or fraud and produced a certificate from his Principal stating that he had availed leave to attend classes during the relevant period (Annexure P-C dated 4-8-1986).
Respondent-University's Arguments
- The University alleged the petitioner was in regular employment as a Lecturer at Sultanpur (about 500 km from Sagar) during 1984-85 and therefore could not have attended the requisite classes or secured the required percentage of attendance (as per Ordinance No. 6).
- It asserted the petitioner did not produce a certificate of bona fide residence within the territorial jurisdiction of the University, as required under clause 13(1) for Non-Collegiate/Private candidates, and left the relevant column blank on his application form (Annex. R-2), amounting to suppression of material facts.
- The University relied on prior case law (Bal Krishna Tiwari and Alakhananda Garg) to support its position that candidature/results may be withheld or cancelled where misrepresentation or ineligibility is discovered.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bal Krishna Tiwari v. Registrar of Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa, 1978 MPLJ 172 : AIR 1978 MP 86 (F.B) | Relied upon by respondent-University to support withholding/cancellation where ineligibility or misrepresentation is alleged. | The Court observed this decision was relied upon by the University but held it did not advance the University's case because it stood on different facts. |
| Alakhananda Garg v. Jiwaji University Gwalior, 1979 MPLJ 637 | Relied upon by respondent-University in support of action for misrepresentation/withholding. | The Court found this decision was on different footing and therefore not applicable to justify withholding the petitioner's result. |
| Pretish Chandra Dutta v. University of Sagar, 1973 M.P.L.J 740 | When a candidate has been allowed to appear in an examination, it must be taken that he had fulfilled all requirements for admission to the examination. | The Court relied on this decision to infer that issuance of an admission card showed the petitioner had been certified as eligible and any defaults were condoned. |
| Purshottam Das v. Board of Secondary Education, 1961 M.P.L.J 1393 : AIR 1962 MP 3 | Principle that permission to appear indicates fulfilment of prerequisites; supports presumption of eligibility. | The Court applied this principle (as relied on in Pretish Chandra Dutta) to support the inference that the petitioner was eligible when the admission card was issued. |
| Premji Bhai Ganesh v. Vice-Chancellor, Ravishanker University, 1967 M.P.L.J 320 : AIR 1967 MP 194 | Final certificate of attendance must be issued before admission card; once admission cards are issued there is no provision to withdraw permission to appear; results cannot be withheld thereafter. | The Court relied on this authority to hold that once admission cards have been issued the University cannot subsequently withdraw permission or withhold results for defects that should have been dealt with earlier. |
| Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, (1976) 1 SCC 311 : AIR 1976 SC 376 | Duty of Head/University to scrutinise admission forms; if they fail to do so, a candidate's non-disclosure does not amount to fraud; allowing a candidate to take the exam eliminates subsequent withdrawal power. | The Court used this decision to reinforce that the University's failure (if any) to scrutinise does not permit it to treat the candidate as having committed fraud and to withhold results after permitting the examination. |
| Jogendra Singh v. Vikram University Ujjain, AIR 1982 MP 202 | Followed the principle that permission to appear, once given, cannot normally be withdrawn and supports treating the candidate as having met requirements. | The Court cited this decision as consistent authority supporting the view that issuance of admission cards precludes subsequent withholding of results on the same grounds. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first examined the relevant provisions of Ordinance No. 6 of the University concerning eligibility and attendance. The Ordinance requires submission of an application in prescribed form via the Principal/Head of Department (clauses 6(1) and 7(1)), and contemplates that the Principal/Head will forward lists to the Registrar categorising candidates by attendance (List A: ≥75%; List B: short by ≤15% for condonation; List C: short by >15% to be debarred) as per clause 7(iii). Clause 21(1) authorises issuance of admission cards where the candidate is found eligible; clause 23(iii) allows cancellation if it is discovered after admission that the candidate obtained admission by misrepresenting facts or submitting forged documents.
Applying these provisions to the present facts, the Court noted the following undisputed material facts:
- The petitioner was admitted as a regular student for M.A. (Previous) in 1984-85 and was issued an admission card to appear in the M.A. (Previous) examination in 1985.
- The petitioner appeared in that 1985 examination and was declared successful (Annexure P-1).
- The petitioner applied in time, through the Head of the University Teaching Department, for admission to the examination in accordance with clauses 6(1) and 7(1), and there is nothing on record that the Head had forwarded a List 'C' recommending debarment.
From these points the Court drew the legal inference that the Head of the Department must have forwarded the petitioner's application with the recommendation that he had prosecuted a regular course of study with required attendance and good conduct, such that he was fit to be admitted to the examination (i.e., the procedural steps required by the Ordinance were adhered to). The Court reasoned that if the petitioner lacked the prerequisites, the admission card would not have been issued; accordingly, issuance of the admission card gave rise to the presumption that the prerequisites were satisfied or that any deficiency had been condoned by competent authorities.
The Court relied on a line of authorities (Pretish Chandra Dutta; Purshottam Das; Premji Bhai Ganesh; Shri Krishan; Jogendra Singh) establishing and reinforcing the principle that once a candidate is permitted to appear in an examination (and admission cards are issued), the power to withdraw that permission is generally spent and it is not open to the University to withhold results later for defects that ought to have been detected and remedied before the issuance of admission cards.
The Court addressed the University's reliance on Bal Krishna Tiwari and Alakhananda Garg, noting that those decisions stood on different facts and therefore did not support the University's position in the present case. The Court further observed that no Rule, Regulation, Statute or Ordinance was pointed out to show that the petitioner was required to disclose that he held a regular appointment, nor was there a column in the admission form requiring such disclosure; consequently, there was no suppression of material facts or fraud established against the petitioner.
On the residency point, the Court noted the University's own photocopy of the admission form showed that a certificate of bona fide residence was not necessary to be filed by candidates who had already passed the main examination of the University in 1985. Since the petitioner had passed the M.A. (Previous) in 1985, the residency requirement did not operate to make him ineligible as a private candidate for the Final examination.
Considering the ordinance scheme, the undisputed facts, the petitioner's rejoinder/certificate, and the authorities cited, the Court concluded that the University was not justified in withholding the petitioner's M.A. (Final) result.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition is allowed. The impugned orders withholding the petitioner's result — Annexure P-4 dated 31-5-1986 and Annexure P-6 dated 26-6-1986 — are quashed. The petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed.
Direct Consequences and Orders:
- The respondent-University is directed to declare the petitioner's M.A. (Final) (linguistic) result forthwith.
- The respondent-University is ordered to pay Rs. 250/- to the petitioner as costs of the petition.
- The outstanding amount of security held by the University is to be refunded to the petitioner.
Broader Implications: The Court applied established authority to reaffirm that issuance of an admission card and permitting a candidate to sit for an examination generally precludes later withdrawal of permission or withholding of results for defects that should have been detected and addressed prior to admission. The opinion did not purport to lay down a new principle beyond its application of existing precedents.
Disposition: Petition allowed.
Faizanuddin, J.:— By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 31-5-1986 and 26-6-1986, Annexures P-4 and P-6 respectively, passed by the respondent-University and conveyed by its Deputy Registrar, withholding M.A (Final) result of the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioner's result for M.A (Final) linguistic examination, held in April/May 1986.
2. The petitioner took admission in M.A (Previous) linguistic in the year 1984, in the respondent-University and became a regular student of the said University. He appeared in M.A (Previous) Examination held by the University in 1985 and as per his Marksheet (Annexure-P-1) the petitioner was declared successful. However, for the final year the petitioner applied for permission to appear as a private candidate in the examination to be held in 1986. The petitioner was granted permission for which an Admission Card (Annexure-P-3) for the said examination was issued to him. Consequently, the petitioner appeared in M.A (Final) examination of the University held in April/May 1986 but without any reason or rhyme his result has been withheld as per orders dated 31-5-1986 and 26-6-1986, copies whereof have been filed as Annexures P-A and P-6 respectively, which are hereby challenged in this petition.
3. The respondent-University has opposed the petition by filing its return. In the return, although it has been accepted that the petitioner had appeared as a regular candidate of the University in M.A (Previous) examination 1985 and was declared successful in the same, but it has been alleged that subsequently it was discovered that the petitioner, in fact, was in the regular employment and working as a Lecturer since 1984-1985 in Mahatma Gandhi Intermediate College, Sultanpur (U.P), which is at a distance of about 500 Kms from Sagar and it was practically impossible for him to attend the classes in the academic year 1984-1985 while prosecuting his studies in M.A (Previous) in the University at Sagar. It has been further alleged that by virtue of the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 6 of the University, it is necessary for a regular student to have at least 60% attendance to his credit in order to make himself eligible to appear in the examination. But as the petitioner was serving at Sultanpur he could not have Secured 60% attendance in M.A (Previous) as a regular student and that an enquiry against the petitioner is pending in this behalf before the respondent No. 2 (Head of the Department, University of Sagar).
4. Further case of the respondent-University is that according to clause 13(1) of Ordinance No. 6 it is a pre-requisite condition for a Non-Collegiate Candidate (Private Candidate) for any examination of the University that he should be a bona fide resident of a District within the territorial jurisdiction of the University or should have been residing on the date of submission of his application form for admission to an examination for at least 12 months in a place situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the University. But the petitioner was regularly working as a Lecturer on a permanent post since prior to 1984-1985 and even thereafter and he never resided within the territorial jurisdiction of respondent-University nor he submitted any certificate to this effect. On the contrary the petitioner left the necessary column unfilled in his application form (Annex. R-2) and thus suppressed the material facts. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner was not eligible to appear as a private candidate in M.A Final Examination also and as such his result has been rightly withheld.
5. The petitioner has denied all the adverse allegations of the respondent-University by filing a rejoinder supported by an affidavit. In the rejoinder the petitioner has submitted that he availed of all the leave due to him in order to attend the classes in M.A (Pre.) during 1984-1985 as per certificate Annexure P-C dated 4-8-1986 of the Principal of the institution where he was serving.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that once the petitioner was issued the Admission Card and allowed to appear in the examination, then it most be presumed that the petitioner had fulfilled all the eligibility requirements and the deficiency, if any, has been condoned and therefore, the respondent-University cannot be permitted to turn round and withhold the result of the petitioner on the ground that he was not having 60% of attendance. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-University contended that the petitioner had committed a fraud by not disclosing the fact that he was in regular employment at Sultanpur (U.P) a distant place from Sagar and it was not in any way possible for him to attend the classes in M.A (Pre.) at Sagar. Reliance was placed in Bal Krishna Tiwari v. Registrar of Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa, 1978 MPLJ 172 : AIR 1978 MP 86 (F.B) and Alakhananda Garg v. Jiwaji University Gwalior, 1979 MPLJ 637.
7. Before dealing with the rival contentions it would be useful first to look into the relevant provisions contained in the University Ordinance, University Ordinance No. 6 deals with the examinations (general), the sub-clauses 1 to 5 of which deal with percentage of attendance in order to be eligible for appearing in any examination. Clause 6(1) provides that a candidate shall submit an application in the prescribed fans, for admission to the examination through the Principal of College/Head of the University which according to clause 7(1) shall be forwarded to the Registrar of the University. Further clause 7(iii) of Ordinance No. 6 provides that the Principal of the College or Head of the University Teaching Department concerned shall send to the Registrar at least three weeks before the commencement of the examination concerned three separate lists, namely, list ‘A’ of those candidates who attended at least 75 per cent of lectures; List ‘B’ of those candidates whose attendance is short by not more than 15% for condonation by the Kulapati, the Principal or the Head of the University Teaching Department and List ‘C’ of those candidates whose shortage of attendance exceeds 15% and who are to be debarred from appearing at the examination.
8. Further, if after scrutiny a candidate is found eligible to an examination having fulfilled all the pre-requisites, the Registrar under Clause 21(1) of Ordinance No. 6, shall issue an admission card in favour of the candidate for appearing in the examination. It would be relevant to refer to sub-clause (iii) of Clause 23 of Ordinance No. 6 which provides that the Executive Council may cancel the examination of a candidate and/or debar him from appearing at an examination, if it is discovered afterwards that the candidate had obtained admission to the examination by misrepresenting facts or by submitting false or forged certificates/documents.
9. Now, in the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was a regular student of the respondent-University in M.A (Previous) in the academic session 1984-1985. Admittedly the petitioner was issued admission card for appearing at the examination as regular candidate and that he did appear in M.A (Previous) examination held by the University in 1985 and as per Annexure P-1 the petitioner was declared successful. There is also no controversy that the petitioner had applied in time to the Registrar in the prescribed form, through the Head of the University Teaching Department, for admission to M.A (Previous) examination to be held in April/May 1985 in accordnace with the provisions contained in clause 6(i) read with clause 7(i) of Ordinance No. 6. There is also nothing on record to show nor it has been so asserted by the respondent-University that the Head of the University Teaching Department concerned had sent to the Registrar List ‘C’ containing the name of the petitioner as one of those candidates whose shortage of attendance exceeded 15 per cent and for that reason he had to be debarred from appearing at the examination.
9-A. Thus, as seen above, there being no dispute whatsoever in respect of the material facts, it would be reasonable and legitimate to draw the legal inference that the Head of the University Teaching Department concerned must have forwarded the application of the petitioner for admission in M.A (Previous) examination to the Registrar of the University with the recommendation that the petitioner had prosecuted a regular course of study with required percentage of attendance, possessed good conduct and was fit to present Himself at the examination in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause 7 of Ordinance No. 6. If in fact, the petitioner was not found to have possessed all the aforementioned pre-requisites and necessary eligibility conditions, he would not have been issued the admission card at all and, therefore, it has to be further presumed that all official acts leading to the grant of an admission card to the petitioner for appearing at the M.A (Previous) examination must have been duly performed in accordance with the Ordinance No. 6 and the default, if any, found to exist on the part of the petitioner it was condoned by the authorities concerned. In almost similar facts and circumstances, in the case of Pretish Chandra Dutta v. University of Sagar, 1973 M.P.L.J 740, this Court relying on earlier Division Bench decision in the case on Purshottam Das v. Board of Secondary Education, 1961 M.P.L.J 1393 : AIR 1962 MP 3, which squarely Applies to the case before us also, took the view that when a candidate has been allowed to appear in the examination; it must be taken that he had fulfilled all the requirements for admission to the examination.
10. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Purshottam Das (supra), it was again reiterated by another Division Bench, in the case of Premji Bhai Ganesh v. Vice-Chancellor, Ravishanker University, 1967 M.P.L.J 320 : AIR 1967 MP 194, that the final certificate certifying the requisite attendance of a candidate, must be issued before the admission card to examination is issued and if any recommendation for condonation of deficiency in attendance is made it has to be done before the issuance of ad mission cards. But once the admission cards are issued, permitting the candidates to take their examination there is no provision in the Ordinance which could enable the concerned authority to withdraw the permission. It was further held that having permitted a candidate to appear for the examination, it is not open to withdraw that permission subsequently or to withhold the result of that candidate. Again, in the case of Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, (1976) 1 SCC 311 : AIR 1976 SC 376, it was observed that before issuing the admission card to a student it is the duty of the Head of the Department and University Authorities to scrutinise the admission form filled by the student in order to find out whether it is in order and had complied with all the requirements. But if neither the Head of the Department nor the University authorities took care to strutinise the admission form, then in not disclosing the shortage of percentage in attendance the question of the candidate committing a fraud did not arise. On these reasonings the Supreme Court held that 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. This view was followed by yet another Division Bench of this Court in Jogendra Singh v. Vikram University Ujjain, AIR 1982 MP 202. Applying this principle, it has to be held that when the petitioner was given the admission card by the University, it must have been so granted because the petitioner has fulfilled all the requirements for admission to the examination and the defaults, if any, were condoned by the authorities competent to do so and therefore, the University is not justified in withholding the result of the petitioner.
11. The decisions in the case of Balkrishna and Alakhnanda (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent-University do not advance the case set up by the University as said decisions stand on different footings and on the different facts. No Rule, Regulation or any Statute or Ordinance was pointed to us by the learned counsel for the respondent-University to show that it was incumbent on the petitioner to show or state that he was in regular appointment anywhere nor there was any column in the admission form to make a mention of the same. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of suppression of any material facts. The petitioner also did not make any mis-statements. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any fraud on the University authorities, which could probably enable the authorities to withhold or cancel his result. As regards the objection that the petitioner had not filed any certificate showing that he was a bona fide resident of a District within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent-University and, therefore, he was not eligible to appear as a private candidate in M.A Final examination, it has no merit at all for the reason that the respondent-University itself has filed a photo-stat copy of admission Form of the petitioner in which at page 2 it is printed that the certificate of bona fide residence is not necessary to be filed by those candidates who have already passed main examination of the University in 1985. As discussed above, the petitioner had already appeared in M.A (Previous) as a regular candidate of the University in 1985 and as per marks-sheet (Annexure P-1) he was declared successful and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to produce the said certificate. This ground also therefore cannot be a valid reason to withhold the result.
12. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders, Annexure P-4 dated 31-5-1986 and Annexure P-6 dated 26-6-1986, are quashed. The respondent-University is directed to declare the result of the petitioner of M.A Final (linguistic) forthwith. The respondent-University shall pay a sum of Rs. 250/- to the petitioner as cost of this petition. The outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioner.
Petition allowed.
Alert