JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. In view of the office report dated 13.4.2006 the service on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are deemed to he sufficient.
2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The case of the petitioner is that after passing High School and Intermediate examination with Science subject he was admitted in B.Sc. course in Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal Unviersity, Jaunpur. It is stated that after passing the B.Sc. final year examination he was admitted in M.Sc. and had passed M.Sc. finally in 1998. Thereafter he appealed for B.Ed. course, which he claims to have passed from the same University in 2000. It is further stated that after passing the B.Ed. course the petitioner was admitted in M.Ed. course 2002-03 and has passed the same from the same University in 2003.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being issued B.Sc. pass certificate in-spite of the fact that he approached the Registrar of the University many times and that when he approached the Registrar of the University he was informed that he has failed in B.Sc. first year as such he can not be issued having passed B.Sc. degree.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following rulings.
1. , Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and Ors.;
2. (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1063, Tasleem Ullab v. Regional Office, Majhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Bareilly ;
3. Shri Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra U.J. SC 1976 page-15; and
4. (1990) 2 UPLBEC 1053 Pravesh Kumar Dubey v. University of Kanpur and Anr.
6. Counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in para 4 of the counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner was admitted in B.Sc. 1st year in 1994 in T.D. College, Jaunpur which is affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Poorvanchal University. The University has no role in so far as the admission of the students is concerned, as the affiliated colleges are to give admission to eligible students on their own. The examination form of the petitioner was sent to the University for B.Sc. Ist year in which he was allotted roll No. 41061, The petitioner appeared in the examination in 1994 and had obtained 274 marks and had failed.
7. Sri Anil Tiwari. counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had got issued pass mark-sheets in collusion with the staff of the collage by making interpolations in the cross-list. On the basis of the aforesaid mark-sheet the petitioner again appeared in B.Sc. IInd year examination from the college. However, his result of B.Sc. IInd year was not declared by the University as he had not passed B.Sc. Ist year examination. The result of the petitioner was therefore shown to be incomplete by the University on account of his failure to pass the B.Sc. Ist year. The petitioner again in collusion with some staff of the college made interpolations in the cross-list of the college and managed to appear in B.Sc. III year showing himself to have passed B.Sc. IId year examination. For the second time also his result was not declared by the University showing incomplete result but again he got issued a pass mark-sheet by the college.
8. It is stated that this was apparent from perusal of the cross-list of the college, After obtaining pass certificate of B.Sc. the petitioner changed the college and took admission in another affiliated college of the same University namely. Rastriya Madavidyalaya. Jaunpur. According to the respondents this step was intentional because had he applied for admission in Tilak Dhari College his fraud would have discovered by the Admission Committee by giving admission in M.Sc.
9. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit it has been averred that on the basis of above fraudulent the petitioner got admission in M.Sc. in Rastriya Mahavidyalalya. Jaunpur. After passing the same he again took admission in the same college i.e. T.I). College Jaunpur in B.Ed. and thereafter in M.Ed. course.
10. It is also averred that the University had already issued warning to T.D. College in this regard vide letter dated 27.1.1997 pursuant to which the college had corrected its cross-list on 23.9.1997 but by that time the petitioner had already obtained a fraudulent pass mark-sheet of B.Sc. examination.
11. It is vehemently urged that the petitioner has succeeded only on account of his fraud, as such he is not entitled to any relief in the present case. It is also urged that in the circumstances when the petitioner applied for issuance of degree this fraud was detected by the University and for this reason the degree of B.Sc. was not issued.
12. Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal at this stage submits that the petitioner has become overage and the whole career of the petitioner will be spoiled as such this petition be treated as mercy petition.
13. It appears from the record that the petitioner was encouraged when he had not passed B.Sc. Part I examination and he in collusion with the college staff continued to get the certificate of B.Sc. I, II and III year pass issued. It is not case where there is a mistake of the University or the college.
14. In the case of Sanatan Gauda (supra) the petitioner was admitted in law course. He was allowed to appear in examinations and later admitted to the final year course but at the stage of declaration of his results of pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations, objections to his in-eligibility to be admitted to the law course raised by the University on the basis of its own interpretation of the relevant regulations. Appellant made no false statement and suppressed no relevant fact before am body. University estopped from refusing to declare the results of appellant's examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course. In the circumstances it was held that the University cannot punish the student for negligence of Principal or University authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it was the bounden duty of the University to have scrutinized the matter before permitting the appellant to appear in the examination and not having done so it cannot refuse to publish his results.
15. In the case of Tasleem Ullah (supra) it was held that the permission to appear in the High School Examination was not given by the Board on ground that form of the petitioner was received after the prescribed date. This ground looses its force, when after receipt of form, the Board issued admit card. Because for negligence of Board in serutinizing the form, petitioner can not be penalized. Refusal of permission was not justified.
16. In the case of Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University it was held that once a candidate is allowed permission, the same can not be withdrawn after the examination, though it may be withdrawn before the examination and admission made in ignorance of law and under the force of circumstances are not binding.
17. In the case of Pravesh Kumar Duhey v. University of Kanpur the petitioner declared pass in B.Sc. Part 2 examination and was permitted to join B.Sc. Part III and appeared in B.Sc. III examination. His result was withheld on ground that he was wrongly declared pass in B.Sc. Part I. There was no fault of the petitioner, hence promissory estoppel was attracted and the University was directed to declare result of B.Sc. Part II and to permit petitioner to appear in B.Sc. Part III examination.
18. The aforesaid cited cases are distinct on facts and law. In that cases there was either the mistake of the Board or the University or the college. In the instant case, the petitioner in collusion with the college staff has got pass mark-sheet of B.Sc. Part I issued and has appeared in B.Sc. Part II and III year examination. The University did not declare his result on the ground that the petitioner's result was incomplete as he has not passed B.Sc. Part I examination.
19. It is settled view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that fraud vitiates every action. It is also settled view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if a student has not passed the first year examination, he can not he permitted to appear in II and III year examination. The petitioner having not passed B.Sc. Ist year examination, was not entitled to appear in B.Sc.II and III year examination and he is not entitled to pass B.Sc. certificate. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that this petition should be viewed with sympathy, as it is a matter of student is without any substance. The student who commits forgery with college staff cannot be a responsible citizen, hence, such student does not deserve for any sympathy.
20. For the reasons stated above I do not find any merit in this case.
21. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner states that the petition may be dismissed as not pressed. Since the judgment has already been dictated in open Court on merits this prayer cannot be allowed.
22. The writ petition is dismissed with Rs. 5000/- costs. However, it is open to the authority concerned to proceed in the matter in according with law.