Allowed

Homa Manzar v. the v.C.,Rajendra Agri.Univers

Patna HC9 Aug 2010CWJC/8419/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a university which delayed publishing first-semester results and admitted a student to the second semester cannot later drop her on the same ground, relying on Shri Krishan vs. Kurukshetra University. The student was allowed to continue.

What did the court decide?

Writ application allowed to the extent the petitioner is entitled to continue with her second semester course.

Homa Manzar Vs the v.C.,Rajendra Agri.Univers — Education and Admissions | Patna HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

CWJC No.8419 of 2010

¶3

HOMA MANZAR D/O MANZAR KHALIL R/O MOH NEW COLONY DHARMPUR, P.S.SAMASTIPUR TOWN, DISTT-SAMASTIPUR Versus

¶4

THE VICE CHANCELLOR , RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY PUSA, SAMASTIPUR

¶5

THE REGISTRAR RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY PUSA,SAMASTIPUR

¶6

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY PUSA, SAMASTIPUR

¶7

THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION , RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY PUSA, SAMASTIPUR

¶8

¶9

9.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶10

learned counsel for the Rajendra Agriculture University.

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the

¶12

Deputy Registrar dated 18.2.2010, dropping her from the University while she was in the second semester of the post graduate course on the ground that she had failed to clear two papers of the first semester.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent University should not have permitted the petitioner to take admission in the second semester of the course, attend classes and then mid way hold her ineligible

¶14

for the second semester on account of failure in two papers

¶15

of the first semester. It was for the University itself to deny

¶16

her any admission in the second semester. It was the obligation of the University to publish the result in time before granting admission in the second semester. The University not having fulfilled its own statutory obligations

¶17

¶18

cannot cast liability upon the petitioner for its own lapses. He relies upon A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 376 ( Shri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra).

¶19

This Court is satisfied that once the respondents delayed publication of result themselves, taking advantage of their own delay and to cover their lapses granted admission to the petitioner in the second semester, they cannot now to cover their lapses deny permission to the petitioner to continue with the second semester by dropping her from the University. For reasons of the discussion contained in Shri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (Supra) relied upon, this application has to be allowed.

¶20

The petitioner is held entitled to continue with her second semester course. This order shall however not vest any right in her to claim permission to the third semester course unless and until she fulfils the conditions as prescribed in the regulations including clearing the papers of the first semester, if it so provides.

¶21

The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated.

¶22

P. Kumar

¶23

(Navin Sinha, J.)

Homa Manzar v. the v.C.,Rajendra Agri.Univers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Homa Manzar v. the v.C.,Rajendra Agri.Univers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Bari Jamia Niswan Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Hare Krishna Lal Das Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.Dhirendra Kumar Das'Arvind' Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Uma Shankar Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Subash Chandra Maurya Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.