Allowed

Kumar Rituraj v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 Feb 2009CWJC/17730/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order withholding M.A. Part II examination results, holding that a show-cause notice was mandatory before disqualifying an individual candidate for alleged unfair means when facts contradicted the initial finding of absence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order withholding results set aside; Respondents directed to issue show cause notice and re-determine issue within two weeks.

Kumar Rituraj Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Patna HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
 CWJC No.17730 of 2008
 KUMAR RITURAJ
 Versus
 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
 -----------

¶2

17.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Patna University.

¶3

The petitioner appeared at M.A. Part II examination, 2008 in M.A. Rural Studies Rural Management & Development. His results were withheld. The results were published on the website. The petitioner appeared in all the papers when he was shown absent in Paper 10. The petitioner represented when the Professor-in-charge and Principal, Science College, Patna on

¶4

11.8.2008 endorsed on his representation that the petitioner was present in 10^th paper in the examination held in April, 2008 when his copy number was 48071.

¶5

The University then issued an order that the candidate with Registration No. 21768/03, Roll No. 1117 has been disqualified in 10^th paper for allegedly having used unfairmeans. Though this roll number is stated to be belonging to the petitioner, the report contained the name of Mr. Ranjit Kumar son of Sri Nageshwar Sah.

¶6

It is not in controversy that before the University decided to withhold his results on grounds of alleged unfairmeans, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The allegations did not relate to large scale use of unfairmeans but vis-à-vis an individual candidate. A show cause notice was, therefore,

¶7

¶8

necessary before depriving him of the benefit of result. This assumes marked importance in view of the endorsement of Professor-in-charge and Principal, Science College dated 11.8.2008 confirming his presence in 10^th paper when he has been shown as absent.

¶9

The aforesaid issues on facts make the final order

¶10

dated 17.10.2008 refusing to publish and withholding the result of the petitioner of M.A. Part II unsustainable and is, therefore, set aside. Respondents 3 & 5 are directed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and re-determine the issue in accordance with law after considering the cause shown and if an order prejudicial to the

¶11

petitioner is proposed to be passed the University shall be obliged

¶12

to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Let the same be done within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt

¶13

and/or production of a copy of this order.

¶14

The writ application stands disposed.

¶15

AKS/

¶16

(Navin Sinha, J.)

Kumar Rituraj v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Rituraj v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Chhatradhari Sanskrit Prathmik Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anni Verma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Archana Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Lalla Rajak Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Umesh Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sunita Kumari Vs the State of Bihar andO Rs