JUDGMENT V. M. Sahai, J.
1. The petitioner was a regular student of B. A. from Buddhya Vldyapeeth Degree College, Naugarh, Siddhartha Nagar which was affiliated to Gorakhpur University. She appeared in B. A. Part HI examination of 1997-98. When the result was declared, she was unsuccessful. She received her marks-sheet on 4.9.1998. The petitioner then came to know that she was marked absent in English third paper. She immediately moved an application on 4.9.1998 to the Registrar of the university informing him that the marks sheet issued to her was incorrect and she had appeared in all the three papers of English subject and requested for a correct copy of the marks-sheet. On 16.9.1998 she received a letter from the principal of the institution directing her to return the Incorrect marks-sheet so that the same may be cancelled and a fresh marks-sheet be issued to her. On 16.9.98 the Principal cancelled the marks-sheet issued on 4.9.1998. The Gorakhpur University on 8.11.1998 issued the correct marks-sheet of the petitioner of B. A. III examination of the year 1998. She passed B. A. examination in second division. Due to the incorrect marks-sheet issued to the petitioner she could not he admitted to M. A. (English) as the admission closed by August, 1998. The petitioner applied for admission in M, A. (English) for the session 1999-200O from Gorakhpur University. The petitioner was selected for admission and was placed at sl. No. 54 at the merit list of general category candidate selected for admission which was published on 18.8.1999. When the petitioner went to deposit her fee it was not accepted and she was Informed that her admission had been cancelled.
2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the university it is stated in paragraphs 10 and 11 that the petitioner was admitted due to clerical error as she having passed in 1997-98 she was entitled to be admitted in 1998-99. But since she did not take admission in that year 5% marks were to be deducted under Rule 10. therefore, the clerical error was rectified even before the notice could be put on the notice board.
3. I have heard Sri Shyam Narain learned counsel for the petitioner and Srt Dillp Gupta learned counsel appearing for the respondents Rule 10 on which reliances has been placed In the counter-affidavit and is quoted paragraph 10 (a) is extracted below.
??? (Images Appear)
4. A very perusal of the rule makes it clear that the gap of one year has to be counted from the date the candidate is declared successful it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was declared successful in November, 1998. Therefore, one year could be counted from that date only. And the first year of admission from that date was 1999-2000 as the admission for 1998-99 had closed in August 1998.
The university, therefore, was not justified in invoking Rule 10 and deducting 5% marks under it. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been successful in 1997-98. the delay in declaration of her result was caused due to mistake of the university itself. It is well-established principle of equity and fairness which is the basis for dispensation of Justice that no one can suffer for the mistake or fault of the person or the Institution who commits the mistake. The mistaken marks-sheet was issued due to the mistake of the University. The petitioner had appeared in all the papers. Her answer books in each paper must have been examined by the university which conducted the examination if in these circumstances. the university committed the mistake, therein it has to thank itself. The petitioner who came to know of it in September, 1998 when the marks-sheet was supplied to her cannot be made to suffer for it. The claim in the counter-affidavit that there was a gap of one year because the petitioner did not take admission in 1998-99 cannot be accepted as it was impossible in the circumstances for her to take admission in 1998-99. In fact the university has been responsible for wasting one year of valuable career of the petitioner. She could have claimed damages for this default. Yet the university Instead of realising its mistake and correcting it Immediately took recourse to cancel her admission even for next year. I was inclined to award exemplary cost against the university but the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that he was more interested for the petitioner pursuing her studies and not to claim any damage or compensation from the university.
5. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner in M. A. (English) for the session 1999-2000 and permit her to appear in examinations. The aforesaid directions shall be complied by the respondents within fifteen days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before respondent No. 2.
6. In the circumstances mentioned above there shall be no order as to costs.