Dismissed

Dillip Ku.Mohanty v. Vc,Utkal University

Orissa HC5 Dec 2019WP(C)/238/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to publish examination results for students who had appeared in back papers but were ineligible under University guidelines, as no admit cards were issued by the University. The petitioners admitted to the +3 session but failed to comply with mandatory enrollment formalities. The court held that since the petitioners never legitimately appear

What did the court decide?

Directions to publish first, second, and final year examination results were denied.

Dillip Ku.Mohanty Vs Vc,Utkal University — Education and Admissions | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 238 of 2013

¶2

05.12.2019 None appears for the petitioners even on revised call.

¶3

Heard Mr. K.P. Nanda, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 and Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.

¶4

Perused the record. The petitioners have filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to publish/declare the result of first year, second year and Final year degree examination within a month.

¶5

As it appears, the petitioners have admitted into +3 degree courses in +3 Bahugram Degree College, Bahadulpapatna, Cuttack for the academic session 2009-10 and they though have appeared the examination, their results have not been published by the authority. Therefore, they have approached this Court by filing the present application.

¶6

Mr. K.P. Nanda, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 contended that the petitioners have not appeared in the first year degree examination and subsequently appeared in the back paper. Thereby, their results have not been published in view of the resolution passed by the University.

¶7

Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 contended that the petitioners were admitted into degree courses but they have not appeared the 1^st year examination and subsequently

¶8

¶9

they appeared in the back paper. But as per the University guidelines and conditions, their results have not been published.

¶10

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioners have admitted into +3 Degree Arts and Science College at Bahugram and they have appeared in 1^st /2^nd year back papers examinations in the year 2010 and 2011, but their results have not been published because they were not eligible for 1^st /2^nd year back papers. But fact remains, the college authority has allowed the petitioners to appear in the examination. The stand of the opposite party-University is that the university has not issued any admit cards to the petitioners and, as such, the college authority has no power to issue such admit cards. Further, a guidelines has been issued by the University to allow the candidates to appear +3 degree examination, vide letter no.1222, and the revised regulation governing +3 degree course effective for the students from the academic session 2002-03 and 200304 has been communicated to all the Principals of affiliated colleges of Utkal University vide letter dated 15.04.2004. Clause-1.2 of the revised guidelines states as follows:-

¶11

“filing of forms for year and examination in each year is mandatory. If a student does not fill up the form for the relevant year-end examination (1^st university examination and 2^nd university examination) he/she will neither be

¶12

¶13

promoted to the next higher class nor shall be allowed to take year back examination. Studentship of such students shall be cease at the end of the academic year.”

¶14

In such view of the matter, as the admit cards had been issued by opposite party no.3 at his end for +3 2^nd year back paper-2011 and final degree back paper-2012, but were not issued by the University and, as such, the petitioners have never appeared +3 1^st year examination and also subsequent examination, question of publishing the result thereof does not arise.

¶15

In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶16

Ashok

¶17

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

Dillip Ku.Mohanty v. Vc,Utkal University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dillip Ku.Mohanty v. Vc,Utkal University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ballav Charan Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Sukanti Meher Vs State of Orissa

G.Dilip Ku.Patra Vs State and Ors.

Jayachandra Meher Vs State of Odisha

Kumudini Harijan Vs State

Ranjan Ku.Pratihari Vs State and Ors.