In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
1-Civil Writ Petition No.8240/2009
Dharampal Bajiya & (6) Ors Versus
Raj. Univ. Of Health & Science & Ors
2-Civil Writ Petition No.8437/2009
Bhanwar Lal Baror & (27) Ors Versus
Raj. Univ. Of Health & Science & Ors
3-Civil Writ Petition No.8438/2009
Jabbar Ahmed Khan & (8) Ors Versus
Raj. Univ. Of Health & Science & Ors
Date of Order ::: 19/03/10
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr. Anant Bhandari, for petitioners.
Ms Anita Agrawal, for Mr. GK Garg, for respondent University
These three petitions filed jointly by 7, 28, & 9 petitioners in CWP-8240/2009; CWP-8437/2009 & CWP-8438/2009 respectively since involve identical controversy hence were heard together and are being finally disposed of at joint request of the parties by present order.
Common grievance of the petitioners is that they were arbitrarily denied permission to appear in remand papers (in which they failed) of B.Sc. (Nursing) Part-I examination while as contended by their counsel, they were eligible to appear in supplementary examination in terms of Ord.299-V-6 of the University Ordinance – despite having been declared failed by respondent-University. It has not been disputed that the petitioners appeared in B.Sc. (Nursing) Part-I examination but failed in three subjects and accordingly were declared failed by respondent University in B.Sc. Part-I (Nursing). When supplementary examinations were in the offing, they approached by way of instant petitions; and under interim orders dt.14/07/09 (CWP-8240/09) & dt.17/07/2009 (CWP-8437/09 & 8438/09), they were permitted to appear in supplementary examination in their remand papers of B.Sc. Part-I (Nursing) on provisional basis; in the result, on its perusal it appears that still they failed in two subjects in supplementary examination; at this stage, misc. application (No.208/dt.04/01/2010 in CWP-8240/09) was filed by the petitioners with the grievance that since they have now been declared failed only in two subjects out of five in B.Sc. Part-I (Nursing), they are eligible to be promoted in terms of Ord.299-V-6 and are also eligible to appear in B.Sc. Part-II (Nursing) examination alongwith remand papers of B.Sc. Part-I (Nursing).
Counsel for respondents on the other hand submits that initially the petitioners indisputably failed in more than two subjects in B.Sc.Part-I (Nursing) in which they were declared failed and could not be promoted in next higher class of B.Sc. Part-II (Nursing) in terms of Ord.299-V-9. Counsel submits that if Ord.299-V-6 & V-9 is read with Ord.299-V-14, it is explicitly clear that if student fails in more than two papers, he will be declared as failed; thereby in-eligible to be promoted to next higher class of B.Sc (Nursing) Part-II; and if the petitioners despite being declared failed, are permitted to appear in B.Sc.-Part-II (Nursing) examination, that will be in contravention of University Ordinance and being ineligible, have rightly been declared failed in B.Sc. Part-I (Nursing) and thereby not promoted to next higher class of B.Sc.-Part-II (Nursing).
Counsel further submits that as per Ord.299-V-14, if student has failed in more than two papers, he is required to re-appear in all the papers while rejoining the classes from the beginning of the session, in which the petitioners have failed to re-appear and rejoin; as such no relief in instant cases can be granted.
This Court has considered contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the material on record. Relevant Ord.299-V-5, Ord.299-V-6, Ord.299-V-9 & Ord.299-V-14 are quoted ad infra:-
O.299-V-5 A candidate who has completed the regular course of studies for one academic year shall be eligible for B.Sc. Nursing Part-I examination.
O.299-V-6 A candidate who has passed B.Sc Nursing Part-I examination will be promoted to B.Sc. Nursing Part-II course and after completion of regular course of studies for one academic year shall be eligible for B.Sc. Nursing Part-II examination. Or
A candidate who has failed in any two papers will also be promoted to the B.Sc. Nursing Part-II course and shall also be eligible for examination to B.Sc. Nursing Part-II. The result of examination of B.Sc. Nursing Part-II will be kept withheld and declared only when the candidate has passed all the papers of B.Sc. Nursing Part-I examination.
O.299-V-9 A candidate failing in more than two papers will be declared as failed and shall not be promoted promoted to the next higher class of B.Sc. Nursing.
O.299-V-14 Candidates who have failed in more than two papers are required to re-appear for all the papers and for which they should re-join the classes from the beginning of the session.
(emphasis added)
Taking note of conjoint reading of provisions contained in Ord.299-V quoted supra, it explicitly depicts that a candidate having failed in any two papers of B.Sc. (Nursing) Part-I examination will be promoted to B.Sc (Nursing) Part-II; however, the result of examination of Part-II will be kept withheld and declared only when the candidate has passed all the papers of B.Sc.Pt-I (Nursing) examination; and as per Ord.299-V-9, a student if having failed in more than two papers will be declared as failed; thereby in-eligible for being promoted to the next higher class of B.Sc. (nursing) Part-II; inasmuch as under O.299-V-14, candidates if having failed in more than two papers are required to reappear in all the papers, for which they should re join the classes from the beginning of the session.
Indisputably, petitioners since having failed in more than two papers of B.Sc. Part-I (Nursing), they were declared failed in B.Sc. Part-I (Nursing) and merely because they were permitted to appear in supplementary examination of Part-I under interim orders of this Court, that will not confer any right in their favour.
As regards submission made by Counsel for petitioners in respect of their grievance being covered under clause of O.299-V-6 of the University Ordinance, suffice it to say that taking note of conjoint reading of Ord.299-V-6, 299-V-9 & 299-V-14 quoted supra, there could not be any other interpretation of the University Ordinance as taken note of by this Court and the interpretation of statute would not depend upon a contingency and it is a trite law that the Court would ordinarily take recourse to the golden rule of liberal interpretation and what has been urged by the Counsel did not manifest the intent from the provisions (supra). This Court finds no justification and error being committed by respondent University warranting interference in the action impugned herein.
Consequently, writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p5/
8240CW2009Mar19DsExm(3)Nrsng.do