JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Shashi Nandan, senior advocate, assisted by Smt. Sunita Agarwal advocate on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Notices were issued to respondents 6 to 9 by the office, under the orders of this Court, on 6.1.2004. However, nobody has put in appearance on their behalf.
2. Urmlla Singh, the petitioner was admitted to LL.B. 3 years degree course in Deen Dayal Upadhaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the University) in the year 2000. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the 1st and 2nd semester examinations of the 1st year and was successful. The' petitioner was, thereafter, admitted to LL.B. 2nd year and she cleared 3rd and 4th semesters examinations. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for admission to LL.B. 3rd year and deposited the requisite fee with the University. The petitioner passed her 5th semester examination in the month of April, 2003. The University issued a notification in respect of 6th semester examination of the 3rd year, however, the petitioner was not issued admit card despite endorsement being made by the Controller of the Examinations to the effect that the petitioner's roll number is 164231 and that the petitioner's admit card has not been withheld. However, the admit card was not issued to her as a consequence whereof the petitioner could not undertake the examination of 6th semester. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to appear in LL.B. 3rd year, 6th semester examination.
3. Allegations of mala fide have been made by the petitioner in the writ petition against the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 who have been impleaded by name as well as in their official capacity. This petition came up for admission before this Court on 5.1.2004 and this Court vide order of the same date directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear provisionally in the remaining papers of LL.B. 3rd year, 6th semester which were scheduled to be held with effect from 2.1.2004, with the further observation that the question regarding holding of re-examination in the papers the examination whereof was held on 2nd January, 2004 would be considered by this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition.
4. A supplementary-affidavit dated 10th March, 2004 has been filed by the petitioner wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has appeared in the remaining papers of LL.B. 3rd year, 6th semester examination, however, the result of the petitioner was shown as incomplete. Further, on the basis of an alleged meeting of the Admission Committee which took place on 17th January, 2004 the petitioner was issued a show cause notice requiring her to explain as to why her admission to LL.B. course be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said show cause notice vide letter dated 25th February, 2004.
5. The respondents in the counter-affidavit to the amendment application have brought on record the decision of the Admission Committee dated 4th March, 2004, whereby the admission granted to the petitioner in LL.B. 3 years degree course in the year 2000 has been cancelled. The said order of the University has also been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition by means of amendment application dated 18.4.2004. Necessary counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In view of the order passed by the Admission Committee dated 4th March, 2004 the relief prayed for by the petitioner with regard to declaration of her result of LL.B. 3rd year 6th semester, after a direction to the respondents to hold the examination of the papers concerned which the petitioner could not undertake because of non-issuance of the admit card, would depend upon the issue as to whether the admission of the petitioner in LL.B. 3 year Degree Course in the year 2000 was strictly In accordance with law and as to whether the said admission of the petitioner has been legally cancelled under the impugned decision of the Admission Committee dated 4th March, 2004 as has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 6th April, 2004.
7. The order dated 4th March, 2004 cancelling the admission of the petitioner to LL.B. 3 years Degree Course contains two reasons, i.e., (a) on 26.1.2000 when the petitioner was granted admission in LL.B. 1st year she was already enrolled as a Research Scholar in Lalit Kala Evam Sangeet Department of the University, to be precise on 30.11.1998 ; and that no student is entitled to pursue two courses simultaneously, and (b) petitioner Urmila Singh was appointed as assistant teacher in Lala Karan Chand Thapar Inter College, Betalpur, Deoria, on 27.5.2003 after being selected by the U. P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad, which is a full time employment and concealing the aforesaid fact she obtained admission in LL.B. 3rd year on 27.3.2003 as a regular student.
8. So far as the ground No. 1 is concerned it may be stated that in the year 2000 when the petitioner was granted admission to LL.B. 3 years degree course in the University even after her being registered as Research Scholar in Lalit Kala Evam Sangeet Department of the University, there was no prohibition for a Research Scholar to simultaneously undertake studies as a regular student in LL.B. 3 years degree course. The prohibition with regard to Research Scholar being not entitled to seek admission in any degree course was introduced in the University for the first time in the year 2002-03 as is apparent from the document filed as Annexure-CA-3 to the counter-affidavit. The prohibition incorporated in the year 2002-2003 reads as follows :
^^fof/k ,d iw.kZdkfyd ikB~;Øe gS A blds lkFk dksbZ ikB~;Øe ¼[email protected]@'kks/k½ esa v/;;u ugha fd;k tk ldrk A**
9. The counsel for the University has specifically admitted before this Court that there was no similar prohibition in respect of admission to LL.B. 3 years degree course prior to the year 2002-03. The petitioner has referred to the provisions as they were existing in the year 2000, under the Ordinances regulating LL.B. 3 years degree course, Clause 7 whereof reads as follows :
"7. No candidate shall be allowed to combine law with other Graduate or Post-Graduate studies. But a candidate may be allowed to pursue the course of study for the Diploma in English examination of Gorakhpur University provided that there is no conflict with the time-table of teaching in the Law Department."
10. Reference may be had to Clause 5 of the Examination (General) (i) of the Ordinance of the University which reads as follows:
"No candidate shall be allowed to appear in more than one degree examination in one and the same year:
Provided that no candidate shall be allowed to combine with LL.B. any other course of graduate or post-graduate studies."
11. From the aforesaid clauses it is apparent that there was only a prohibition to combine law with any other Graduate or Post Graduate Degree Course in the same year. The prohibition was not applicable for combining law with the registration as a Research Scholar. Registration as a Research Scholar is not a under graduate or post graduate course of study.
12. In view of the aforesaid since there was no prohibition for a Research Scholar to be admitted simultaneously in LL.B. 3-year degree course in the year 2000 as per the Ordinances of the University, it cannot be said that there was any illegality or infirmity in the admission granted to the petitioner in LL.B. 3-year Degree Course in the year 2000. In the opinion of the Court any subsequent amendment in the Ordinances whereby prohibition has been so imposed restraining a Research Scholar from seeking admission as regular student in LL.B. 3-year Degree Course with effect from the year 2002-03 and onwards will not in any way affect the admission of the petitioner granted in the year 2000 as the said prohibition is only prospective in nature. More so, in view of the fact as mentioned in para 3 of the counter-affidavit of the respondents themselves that the petitioner had completed her research work and submitted her thesis on 27.11.2002 and was conferred degree of Ph.D. on 8.2.2003.
13. With regards to the second ground as mentioned in the impugned order it may be noticed that there is no prohibition under the 1st Statutes restricting an employed from pursuing in LL.B. Degree Course. The State Universities Act. 1st Statutes of the University or the Ordinances framed by the University do not provide any restriction in respect of employed students being admitted in LL.B. Degree Course or for being permitted to undertake LL.B. examination after such admission. In such circumstances merely because the petitioner was employed as Assistant Teacher in any institution after being selected by the U. P. State Secondary Education Service Selection Board, it cannot be the basis for refusing her permission to appear in LL.B. 6th semester examination or for cancelling her admission. The only provision relied upon by the University to justify the order for cancelling the admission of the petitioner is Clause 15 of the Ordinances and Regulations made with respect to Faculty of Law which reads as follows :
"No regular candidate shall be allowed to appear at the semester examination of the LL.B. Part I, II and III examination unless he has attended a minimum of 75% of lectures in each paper and also in tutorials separately."
14. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would establish that merely because a candidate has been employed elsewhere the University cannot cancel admission nor the University can withhold permission to appear in the examination if such an employed candidate has achieved minimum 75% attendance in lectures and tutorials separately. In the opinion of the Court the issue as to whether a student of LL.B. is employed or unemployed is totally irrelevant for the purposes of deciding as to whether under Clause 15 he is entitled to appear in the semester examination of LL.B. Part I. II and III. For the said clause being made applicable the only relevant material fact to be considered is as to whether the candidate has achieved 75% attendance in lectures and tutorials separately or not. From the order dated 4th March, 2004 passed by the University cancelling the admission of the petitioner, it is apparently clear that there is no finding/allegation that the petitioner has failed to achieve the said 75% attendance in lectures and tutorials of 6th semester. In such circumstances the order passed by the University dated 4th March, 2004 is patently arbitrary, unjustified and is a clear case of interference with academic career of the student on mere whims and fancies because of arbitrary action of the University authorities. Even otherwise the said provision only permits the University to withhold the permission to appear in the examination and not to cancel the admission of the candidate concerned.
15. From the various allegations which have been made against respondent Nos. 6 to 9 who have been impleaded in individual capacity and further in view of the fact that the said respondents have not filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations so made despite notice having been issued to the said respondents under the orders of this Court, there is little or no hesitation for this Court to hold that the allegations made by the petitioner against the said respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are correct.
16. In view of the aforesaid the respondents were not Justified in cancelling the admission of the petitioner of LL.B. 3-year degree course granted to her in the year 2000 nor they were justified in refusing to issue admit card to the petitioner for appearing in 6th semester examination despite the endorsement of the Examination Controller as referred to above.
17. In such circumstances, it is directed that the respondents shall hold fresh examination of the petitioner in respect of the papers of 6th semester of LL.B. 3rd year which the petitioner could not undertake because of the fault of the respondents, within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The respondents are further directed to declare the result of the petitioner within one month of the said examination. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as have been noticed hereinabove and in view of the uncontroverted allegations of mala fide against respondent Nos. 6 to 9 and further having regard to the fact that academic career of the petitioner has been interfered with by the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 on considerations totally unbecomig of the officers of the institution imparting higher education like the University, this Court directs that respondent Nos. 6 to 9 shall pay a total sum of Rs. 10.000 (ten thousand), Rs. 2,500 each as cost to the petitioner within one month from the date of service of this order upon the Vice-Chancellor of the University. In case the cost is not so paid to the petitioner the same shall be recovered by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur from the aforesaid respondent Nos. 6 to 9 as arrears of land revenue and the amount so collected shall be transmitted to the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Gorakhpur shall submit his compliance report before this Court accordingly.
18. In view of the above the writ petition stands allowed.