LexSANATAN GAUDA versus BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SANATAN GAUDA v. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS. APRIL 2, 1990 [L.M. SHARMA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] Berhampur University Regulations-Regulation l. Chpater VIII ··and Regulation JO Chapter V-Jnterpretation of-Bache/or of Laws Examination (Three Year Course)-Admi"ion to-Condition regard- ing qualifying marks not applicable to post graduate students seeking admission to Law course. After passing his M.A. examination securing more than 40 per cent marks (364 out of 900), the appellant secured admission in 1983 to three-years law course in Ganjam Law College. Along with his form · seeking admission he had submitted the mark-sheet with his M.A. de- gree certificate. He completed his first year course 'Pre-Law course' in 1984 and was promoted to the "Intermediate Law course". In !985, he appeared for the 'pre-law' and 'inter-law' examinations. He gave the said examination and in the same year was admitted to the Final Law course. However his results for the Pre-Law and Intermediate Law course were not declared by the University on the ground that in view of the Regulations of the University, he was not qualified to be admitted to the law course. His admission being improper, he was not eligible to sit at the examinations aforesaid. The appellant made representations to the Bar Council of India and the Administrator of the University but to no avail. When his representations and even the communication from the Chairman of the Board of Studies to the University did not yield the desired result, the appellant approached the Orissa High Court by means of writ petition on 11.5.87 challenging the non-declaration of his results and the University's refusal to permit the appella_nt to appear in the final examination. The writ petition having been dismissed by the High Court, he bas filed this appeal by special leave. The question that falls for determination by this Court is whether the appellant was eligi- ble to be admitted to Law Course. Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: (Per Sawant, J.) A B c D E F G The requirement of 40 per cent marks in the aggregate, is meant H 273 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R A only for graduates such as of Bachelor of Arts. etc. That requirement does not apply to those candidates who pass any higher degree examina- tion after graduation. For admission to the Law Course there is no requirement of any particular marks for post-graduate students like the appellant, and the appellant is entitled to be admitted under Reg. 1 in B Chapter VIIJ of the said Regulations. The appellant satisfies the other qualification as well, viz., he has passed the M.A. examination with 36 .. per cent marks in the aggregate deducting 13 marks in one of the papers and is therefore, duly qualified to be admitted to the Law course. [277G; 278F-G] Resolution No. 123/1984 of the Bar Council of India does not speak of the requirement of marks for examination at post-graduate C level. [279G] D The distinction between graduates and post-graduates made in the matter of the qualifying marks is as it ought to be, since graduates and post-graduates cannot be treated equally. The appellant while securing his admission in the Law College had admittedly submitted his marks-sheet along with the application for admission. The Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admis- sion card for the Pre,law and Intermediate Law examinations. He was E permitted to appear in 'the said examinations. He was also admitted to the Final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the Pre-law and Inter-law examinations that the Univer- sity raised the objection to his so-called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law course. The University is therefore clearly estopped from refus- ing to declare the results of the appellant's examination or from pre- venting him from pursuing his final year course. l280C-E] F (Per Sharma,!.) From the letters of the University it is clear that it was not depend- ing upon the opinion of the Principal and had decided to verify the situation for itself. In that situation it cannot punish the student for the G negligence of the Principal or the University authorities. It is important to appreciate that the appellant cannot be accused of making any false statement or suppressing any relevant fact before anybody. He had produced his marks-sheet
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.