Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2675/2011 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2675 of 2011
=========================================================
RAJYAGURU
DIPESH RAMESHBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
VICE
CHANCELLOR BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RAJESH K SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
MR MUKUND M DESAI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 20/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Mr.Chauhan,
learned advocate for Mr.Desai, learned advocate for the respondents,
has submitted that the reply affidavit was filed in the Registry on
22.03.2011. However, the affidavit, as claimed to have been filed by
the respondents, is not available on record of the petition.
1.2 Mr.Chauhan,
learned advocate for the respondents, has submitted that on inquiry,
the Registry informed that some mistake appears to have occurred as a
result of which the affidavit is not placed on record of the
petition. Therefore, so as to facilitate the hearing, Mr.Desai,
learned advocate for the respondents, has tendered photocopy of the
affidavit made by one Mr.K.L. Bhatt, Registrar (Incharge), Bhavnagar
University.
1.3 Mr.
Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, has, after perusing the
photocopy, confirmed that the same affidavit has been served on him
as well.
1.4 Mr.Desai,
learned advocate for the respondents, has submitted that the
respondents are bound by the averments and submissions stated in the
affidavit made on 17th March, 2011 by the deponent Mr.K.L.
Bhatt, Registrar (Incharge), Bhavnagar University.
1.5 In
view of the aforesaid, for the purpose of passing appropriate order
in present petition, the said affidavit is accepted on record.
1.6 However,
the Registry is directed to take immediate action to trace-out the
original affidavit and place it on record of present petition.
2. So
far as the grievance made by the petitioner and present petition is
concerned, it appears that the respondent-University has not declared
petitioner’s result of the examination of M.Sc. (Part-II) Industrial
Chemistry, for the academic year 2008-2009, though the petitioner was
allowed to appear in the said examination.
2.1 It
is not in dispute between the parties that no order is passed by any
Court directing or requiring the respondent-University to not to
declare the result of the petitioner’s examination.
2.2 Actually,
what transpires from the record and submissions of the learned
advocates for the contesting parties is that in view of the certain
proceedings which are in progress against the Principal of the
respondent no.2-Institute and also the students (including the
petitioner) the petitioner’s result has not been declared.
2.3 The
respondent-University has claimed that certain students of the
respondent no.2-Institute, including the petitioner, did not complete
the requisite number of attendance during the academic year and that
therefore, they were otherwise not eligible to take the examination,
however, according to the prima-facie view of the
respondent-University, the Principal of the respondent-University in
collusion with the students, as per the University’s allegation
manipulated the attendance record of the students so as to show that
the students had completed requisite/minimum number of attendance.
3. Mr.
Desai, learned advocate for the respondents, has submitted that it is
in respect of the said incident and such allegation that the inquiry
against the Principal of the institute and certain students,
including the petitioner, is in progress and that therefore, the
result has not been declared.
3. Mr.
Desai, learned advocate for the respondents, has, with regard to the
relief prayed for by the petitioner in present petition, however,
referred to Para Nos.6 and 7 of the affidavit dated 17.03.2011 made
by the aforesaid deponent Mr. K. L. Bhatt. The said paragraphs of the
reply affidavit read thus:-
“6. It
is humbly submitted that the petitioners students of M.Sc. Part-II
Industrial Chemistry for the academic year 2008-09. Their result was
withheld pending inquiry since their attendance was short than the
required as per rules. However, subsequently, on the representations
of the petitioner and other students, the matter was placed before
the Executive Council of Bhavnagar University and vide Resolution
No.53 in the meeting of the Executive Council held on 25.11.2009 it
was decided to withhold the result of 19 students and if they give an
undertaking in the prescribed form, the result would be declared and
they were informed accordingly vide letter dated 15.12.2009. A copy
of the said letter dated 15.12.2009 is attached as Annexure-E on
page-44 of the petition by the petitioner. Inspite of this letter
dated 15.12.2009, the petitioner has not given undertaking in the
prescribed form and therefore the delay has taken place in
petitioner’s case.
7. It
is humbly submitted that till today, the petitioner has not given the
undertaking as stated above and therefore the result of the
petitioner was not declared and if the petitioner furnishes the
undertaking, the result of the petitioner would be declared.”
3.1 In
light of the said stipulation by the respondent-University, Mr.Desai,
learned advocate for the respondent-University, has submitted that
if the petitioner gives an undertaking prescribed by the
respondent-University then the respondent-University would declare
the result of the petitioner.
4. Mr.Shah,
learned advocate for the petitioner, has stated that the petitioner
is ready and willing to give the undertaking as demanded by the
respondent-University. He has relied upon the order dated 29.04.2010
passed in Special Civil Application No.4229 of 2010 wherein after
having given undertaking the concerned students had sought to
withdraw the undertaken and that therefore, the said order was
passed. However, in present case, the petitioner has, until now, not
given any undertaking in the prescribed form to the
respondent-University. Therefore, the petitioner’s advocate has, as
aforesaid, submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to
tender the undertaken as demanded by the respondent-University.
5. Therefore,
the following order is passed.
5.1 The
respondent-University shall supply a draft of the formate of the
undertaking required by it to the petitioner’s students within one
week from today.
5.2 A
week thereafter, the petitioner’s students will make the undertaking
on affidavit and submit the same to the respondent-University as
stipulated by Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, at the
time of hearing of present petition.
5.3 The
respondent-University shall also inform the petitioner student about
the name and designation of the authority to whom the undertaking
should be submitted after duly signing and affirming the same.
5.4 The
petitioner student shall accordingly submit the duly made (on
affidavit) undertaking to the authority.
5.5 After
the undertaking is tendered and it is found to be in order by the
officer of the respondent-University, the respondent-University shall
thereafter within 10 days, declare the result of the petitioner
student’s examination for the academic year 2008-2009 for M.Sc.
(Part-II), Industrial Chemistry. The result so declared shall be
subject to the final decision which may be taken by the
respondent-University in the inquiry which is in progress.
5.6 If
ultimately the University takes any decision in the inquiry
proceeding which is against the petitioner, then the result shall be
subject to such decision and also subject to the petitioner’s right
to take appropriate action against such decision.
6. With
the aforesaid clarifications, observations and directions, the
petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.)
rakesh/
Top