The Court found that the student had appeared in the final exam in violation of the university’s own examination regulations.
It refused to order publication of the result, holding that courts cannot support such illegality.
The writ petition was dismissed and the result will remain withheld.
Case Background
The case arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Patna High Court. The petitioner was a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) student in Psychology under B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura.
She had taken admission in the B.A. (Honours) course for the session 2012–13 and was allotted Registration No. 53549/2013. Over the next several years, she appeared in different attempts of the B.A. Part I examination, sometimes failing and sometimes not appearing at all.
The dispute reached the Court when the petitioner’s result for B.A. Part III Psychology (Honours) Examination, 2018, held in 2019, was not declared. While the university published general results, her individual result was shown as withheld.
Feeling aggrieved, she approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11923 of 2021, seeking a direction to compel B.N. Mandal University to declare her B.A. Part III Psychology (Honours) result.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The single judge, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, heard arguments from both sides. The central question was whether the university could legally withhold the petitioner’s Part III result on the ground that she had not validly passed the earlier Part I examination as per the Examination Regulations.
The Court first recorded the undisputed academic record of the petitioner in B.A. Part I. She appeared in B.A. Part I (Honours) Examination, 2013, and failed. In 2014, she did not appear in the Part I examination at all.
In 2015, she again appeared in the B.A. Part I examination. She obtained 12 marks in Rashtrabhasha Hindi (R.B. Hindi), 6 and 19 marks in the two Psychology papers (totalling 25), and 34 marks in practical. On this basis, she was declared disqualified.
In 2016, she appeared only in R.B. Hindi and did not appear in the Honours (Psychology) papers. She scored 33 marks in R.B. Hindi. In 2017, she again appeared in B.A. Part I examination and this time obtained 37 and 40 marks in the two Psychology papers.
The crucial fact, which the Court emphasised, was that her appearance in B.A. Part I in the year 2017 itself was contrary to the Examination Regulation, specifically Clause 7.1 of the Examination Regulations framed by B.N. Mandal University.
The University’s stand was that, as per Regulation 7.1, the petitioner could have availed the facility of appearing in B.A. Part I examinations in the years 2014, 2015 and 2016 as carry-over attempts. However, she had no right under the Regulation to take the Part I examination again in 2017, which would be the fourth attempt, beyond the permissible limit.
Because she appeared illegally in 2017 and was then promoted and allowed to sit in B.A. Part III examination, the University treated the whole process as contrary to the Examination Regulations. On this basis, it withheld her B.A. Part III result.
On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner argued that once the University had allowed her to sit in the B.A. Part III Examination, 2018, and she had written the exam, her result could not be withheld later on what were described as “technical grounds”.
To support this, he relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Shri Krishan vs. Kurukshetra University, reported in 1976 (1) SCC 311. In that case, the Supreme Court had considered circumstances where a university, having allowed a student to appear in an examination, later tried to cancel or withhold the result.
However, the petitioner’s counsel fairly could not dispute the factual position that, under Regulation 7.1 of the University’s Examination Regulations, she was not eligible to appear in the Part III examination because she had still not validly cleared B.A. Part I in accordance with the Regulation.
The Patna High Court therefore turned its focus to Regulation 7.1, which was quoted in full in the judgment. Regulation 7.1 provides that there shall be B.A. Part I, Part II and Part III examinations at the end of the first, second and third years of study respectively. It further states that no student shall be admitted to Part II unless he or she has passed Part I, and no student shall be admitted to Part III unless he or she has passed Part II.
The first proviso to Regulation 7.1 allows a limited relaxation. It says that if a student fails in, or fails to appear at, not more than two subjects at B.A. Part I or II, he or she will be promoted to the next higher class. However, such student will not be eligible to be admitted to B.A. Part III class unless he or she has passed B.A. Part I examination in the subject or subjects concerned.
The second proviso further narrows the benefit: this “carry over” facility for appearing in such subjects is available only for not more than three consecutive examinations.
The Court interpreted this to mean that by virtue of the Regulation, the petitioner was entitled to appear in B.A. Part I examinations only for three consecutive years after the first failure: namely 2014, 2015 and 2016. Her appearance in 2017 therefore violated Regulation 7.1. Accordingly, any promotion or permission based on the 2017 attempt, including allowing her to sit in B.A. Part III, was itself contrary to the Regulations.
Then the Court examined how earlier benches of the Patna High Court had dealt with similar disputes. Counsel for the University relied on several Division Bench and single-judge decisions, including Mihir Kumar Jha vs. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 904 of 2014, decided on 07.01.2015), Sunil Kumar vs. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University & Ors., reported in 2020 (4) PLJR 129, and Md. Helal vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 7882 of 2020, decided on 04.01.2021).
In Mihir Kumar Jha, the Division Bench, relying on the same Regulation 7.1, had refused to direct the University to supply mark-sheet and provisional certificate to a candidate who had been allowed to appear in B.A. Part III in breach of the regulation. While doing so, the Bench had already considered the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shri Krishan and still denied relief.
In Sunil Kumar, another Division Bench distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 610. In that case, it was noted, a private institution’s lapse had led to a candidate being allowed to appear despite failure in sessional work, and there was no fault of the university itself. The Division Bench held that such facts could not bind or estop the university when its own regulations clearly barred the candidate.
The judgment also referred to similar single-judge decisions of the Patna High Court in Sima Bharti vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 4605 of 2018, order dated 17.05.2018) and in Ruchi Rachna vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 6114 of 2018). In those cases, the Court refused to issue mandamus for declaration of results where students had appeared more times than allowed by the examination ordinance or regulation, without re-admission as required.
In Ruchi Rachna, it was specifically held that the Court cannot order contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance. The decision in Ranjeet Kumar vs. V.C., J.P. University was distinguished; it was clarified that it does not say that if a student is allowed to appear in violation of regulations, his or her result must necessarily be published.
Finally, the Court quoted paragraphs 11 and 14 of its own earlier decision in Md. Helal, where similar relief had been refused. The Court had then held that passing an order to publish the result in such a situation would “permit and perpetuate illegality”. It stated that if a student somehow manages to appear contrary to Examination Regulations, the Court cannot give aid to support such illegality by directing publication of results.
Further, in Md. Helal, the Court warned that granting relief in such cases would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is because, in similar circumstances, other students who obeyed the rules and did not appear in violation of regulations would be placed at a disadvantage if relief is granted to those who broke the rules or were allowed to break them.
Applying the same reasoning to the present case, the Patna High Court held that the petitioner’s appearance in B.A. Part I in 2017 and her admission to B.A. Part III were both clearly against Regulation 7.1. Therefore, the Court could not direct the University to declare her B.A. Part III result.
The Court concluded that it would not issue any order which would perpetuate an illegality or create inequality with other students who complied with the Regulations. On this basis, the writ application was found to have no merit and was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for students of B.N. Mandal University and similar institutions across Bihar. It makes clear that courts will not intervene to regularise an exam appearance which violates the university’s examination rules, even if the university itself mistakenly allowed the student to sit for the exam.
For students, the ruling is a warning that they must strictly follow the examination regulations on attempts and carry-over subjects. Simply being issued an admit card or being allowed to sit in a paper does not create a right to have the result declared if the basic eligibility is missing.
For universities and colleges, the judgment supports strict enforcement of their regulations. It reassures them that accidental or mistaken permissions given by administrative staff will not, by themselves, force the institution to declare results contrary to its own rules.
The decision also shows that the Patna High Court gives weight to consistency with earlier judgments and to the broader principle that courts cannot be used to bypass academic regulations framed for fairness and academic standards.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can the Patna High Court direct B.N. Mandal University to declare a student’s B.A. Part III result when the student’s appearance in the examination was contrary to Regulation 7.1 of the Examination Regulations?
Answer: No. The Court held that since the student’s appearance in B.A. Part I in 2017 and consequent Part III examination were in breach of Regulation 7.1, it could not order publication of the result, as doing so would perpetuate illegality and violate Article 14.
Issue: Does the fact that a university permitted a student to sit for an examination estop it from later refusing to declare the result on the ground of ineligibility under its regulations?
Answer: No. Relying on earlier Division Bench and single-judge decisions, the Court held that mere permission or conduct of the university does not bind it to disregard its regulations, nor can it compel the Court to issue directions contrary to those regulations.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Shri Krishan vs. Kurukshetra University, 1976 (1) SCC 311.
- L.P.A. No. 904 of 2014, Mihir Kumar Jha vs. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University & Ors., decision dated 07.01.2015.
- Sunil Kumar vs. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University & Ors., 2020 (4) PLJR 129.
- Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 610 (distinguished).
- Md. Helal vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 7882 of 2020, decision dated 04.01.2021.
- Sima Bharti vs. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 4605 of 2018, order dated 17.05.2018.
- Ruchi Rachna vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 6114 of 2018.
- Ranjeet Kumar vs. V.C., J.P. University (referred in Ruchi Rachna, distinguished).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11923 of 2021
Case Title: Manorama Kumari vs. The B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 141
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Date of Judgment: 08-12-2021
Advocates:
- Mr. Umesh Prasad, Advocate – for the petitioner
- Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate – for the respondents
- Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate – for the respondents
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the University to declare B.A. Part III Psychology (Honours) Examination result.
Final Outcome: Writ petition dismissed; no direction issued to publish the petitioner’s B.A. Part III result.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment on the Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
