LexSHRI KRISHAN versus THE KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
lB
c
0
722
SHRI KRISHAN
l'.
THE KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA
November 17, 1975
[H. R. KHANNA, P. N. BHAGWATI AND S, MURTAZA FAZAL ·ALI, JJ.j
Statutes of Kurukshetra University-Ordinance X. cl. 2(b )-Scoo,, of-
App/icarion for examination-Not scrutinised by the University in the beginninR
--If could raise objection after the examination-If University could alle~e fraud
!ater-Statunent made in igndrance of law-Effect of.
Under the statutes of the respondent-University persons in servke could
take the three-year degree course in law by attending the evening classes.
A
candidate who had failed in some of the paP'ers or one year could cl-ear those
papers before comple~ing the three-year course.
Under cl. 2 (b) of Ordinance
X contained in the University Calendar, Volume I, a candidate should sub.mil
lo the University an application seeking permission to appear for an examina-
tion which should be signed by the Principal of the College or the head of the
department concerned certifying that the candidate bad attended a regular course
of study for the prescribed number of academic years.
But, this certificate
is provisional and could be withdrawn at any time before the examination 1t
the applicant failed to attend the prescribed .course or lectures before the end
of bis term.
The appellant, a Government servant; joined the LLB. I year class o[ the
University.
He failed in three papers, but was promoted to the 'Second yc&r.
B1;fore appearing in the second examination. however, he wrote to the Univer-
sity stating that. if be was not able to get the requisite permission from his
employer to join the law classes he would abide by any order that the liniver-
E
sity might pass.
The appellant, however, wrote to the University later that this
condition was not at all necessary and requested that his result in Pa.it 11 might
be announced.
In reply the University wrote to the appellant that since bis
percentage of marks in Part I was short, bi's candidature for Part II examina-
tion stood cancelled.
Having failed in his appeal to the Vice-Chancellor, he
moved the High Court which dismissed his writ petition in liminc.
F
G
H
A'!lowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : The impugned order of the university suffers from errors of law
patent on the face of' the record.
This, was not a case which should have been
dismissed by the High Court in limine.
(730-A]
(!) The last part of cl. 2(b) clearly shows that the University could with-
draw the certificate if the applicant had failed to attend the prescribed course
of lectures.
But, this could be done 011/y before the examination.
Once an
applicant was allowed to take the examination, the statute which empqwers the
University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out
and the applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity
which should have been looked into before giving permission to appear.
[727-E-F]
(2) It was the duty of the University to scrutinise the form for admission
to the examination in order to find out whether it was in order. It was also
the duty of the head of the department of law, before submitting the form to
the University, to see that the form complied with all the requirements of Jaw.
ff neither· took Ca$ to scrutinise the admission form, then the question of the
appellant committing a fraud did not arise.
Where a person on whom fraud
is commiMed is in a position to discover the• truth by due diligence, fraud
is
not proved.' It was neither a case of suggestio, falsi nor of suppressio 1·cd.
[728 A-CJ
j .....
-
• -
.. \
{
I
SHRI KRISHAN v. KURUKSHETRA UNIV. (Fazal Ali, !.)
723
Premii Bhai Ganesh Bhai Kshatriya v. Vice-Chancellor, Ravishankar Uni-
••ersity, Raipur and qthers, A.LR. 1967 M.P. 194, 197, approved.
(3 )(a) There is no provision of the University statutes which could have
afforded jurisdiction to it to cancel the candidature of ihe appellant on the
ground that he had not obtained the previous permission of his superior 1Jfficers.
The impugned order did not mention this ground at all.
[7280, 729-BC]
(b) 'The undertaking given by the app~Hant that he would get the ~equisite
permission of the employer did not put him out ~f wurt. It was wr.1tten b~
cause he was anxious to appear in Part II exammat1on. and was written
111
terrorem and in complete ignorance of his legal rights.
Any admissions made
in ignorance of legal ri'ghts orExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.