Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1076 of 2010 Petitioner :- Chaudhary Charan Singh University Meerut Thru' Registrar Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar Singh And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Anurag Khanna Respondent Counsel :- Smt. Manju.R. Chauhan Hon'ble Ferdino Inacio Rebello,Chief Justice Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
We have perused the impugned interim order.
On an application in a pending petition filed by respondent no. 1,
original petitioner, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to
direct the University to declare his result in which he has appeared.
There was an earlier interim order dated 07.12.2009 whereby he
was allowed to appear in the said examination with a clear
stipulation that the results shall not be declared and would abide by
the final outcome of the petition. Against the said interim order, a
special appeal was filed by the University which was dismissed,
against which the University has preferred a special leave petition
before the Supreme Court wherein notices have been issued to the
respondents therein including the Dental Council of India.
It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
University that the Regulations known as the ‘DCI Revised BDS
Course Regulations, 2007’ specifically sets out that any candidate
who fails in one subject in any examination is permitted to go to
the next higher class and appear for the subject and complete it
successfully before he can appear for the next higher examination.
He points out that considering the clear and express language of
the Regulations, the students, who have failed in more than one
subject, cannot be allowed to keep terms for the next higher
examination.
The stand of the respondent student is that there has been a long
practice by which this regulation has not been followed.
The grievance of the University is against the interim order passed
which is in the nature of mandatory direction to declare the results.
Considering the controversy, in our opinion, such an order could
not have been passed as the earlier interim order dated 07.12.2009
itself restrained the University from declaring the results and made
it subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Further, the
Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 1956 of 2009 affirmed the
said interim order dated 07.12.2009, against which the University
has approached the Supreme Court.
In such a situation, the application on which the impugned interim
order has been passed in the pending matter ought not to have been
entertained and, at the highest, the learned Single Judge could have
proceeded to decide the petition finally.
In the light of that, the appeal is finally disposed of with the
following directions:-
1. The impugned order dated 09.06.2010 is set aside.
2. The counsel for the University will file counter
affidavit in the writ petition within two weeks from
today.
3. Rejoinder affidavit be filed within two weeks
thereafter.
4. Considering the fact that the future of the student is
involved, the learned Single Judge shall make
endeavour to decide the petition expeditiously.
The learned counsel for the University shall inform the learned
Single Judge about the outcome of the special leave petition
pending before the Supreme Court.
(A.P. Sahi, J.) (F.I. Rebello, C.J.)
Order Date :- 9.7.2010
AHA