2004 PLP 442 (YLR)

12. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties with the help of available record.

13. The grievance of the appellants arose on the refusal of the Bahauddin Zakaria University to them of entry appearance in L.L.B., 2nd Part, 1st Annuai Examination, 2000 to be held in the February/March, 2001. The said University had declared them ineligible for such entry/appearance on the ground that they had not completed their one academic year between the passing of the L.L.B., Part I, 2nd Annual Examination, 1999 and taking Part 2nd, 1st Annual Examination, 2000.

14. The controversy raised through the writ petition as well as the instant appeal is the same that the Part I, 2nd Annual Examination, 1999 was integral part of the 1st Annual Examination that year and .so they had completed required one academic year before their intended entry in the IInd Part, 1st Annual Examination, 2000 to be held in February/March, 2001 and therefore, the refusal to them by the University to take the said Part II, First Annual Examination was against the rule.

15. It may be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the appellants during his submissions had laid much stress on occurring of the words the respective examinations in the relevant Rule IV in the matter.

16. According to him, the use of word "examinations" is significant and this denotes not one examination but the two examinations i.e. 1st Annual Examination and the 2nd Annual Examination and so the learned Single Judge in Chamber has not properly adverted to this aspect of the matter and this has caused them prejudice in their case.

17. We are afraid that by advancement of such contention he has completely ignored the Regulation 5 relevant to the subject, which provides as under:-- "5.(i) A candidate of any part of L.L.B. Class who appears in the examination in all the subjects and passes in four or more papers, obtaining an aggregate of 45 of the marks in these papers may be exempted .from re-appearing therein at the ' subsequent examination. He shall, however, be required to appear and pass all the remaining papers (obtaining 40 % in individual papers and 45 % in aggregate) in any two of the three examinations immediately succeeding the examination in which he was granted exemption in four or more papers on payment of the same fee as for the whole examination on each occasion. " The learned Single Judge in Chamber has kept in view the same and interpreted it in the true perspective in not agreeing with the case of the appellants. Before commenting further on this aspect of the matter we would also like to reproduce hereinbelow Rules II, III and IV, for clarify of our view:-- "(ii) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the regulations, the L.L.B., Part I students, who appear in the First Annual Examination shall be permitted to join the L.L.B., Part II Class provisionally at the time of regular admissions to the college and in case they fail to do so shall lose their right of admission and shall not be allowed to join the college after the declaration of the result of the First Annual Examination. (iii) Notwithstanding, anything to the contrary contained in the regulations, the L.L.B., Part II students, who appear in the First Annual Examination shall be permitted to join the L.L.B., Part III Class provisionally at the time of regular admission to the college and in case they fail to do so shall lose their right of admission and shall not be allowed to join the college after the declaration of the result of the First Annual Examination. (iv) The names of the students admitted provisionally mentioned in clauses (ii) and (iii) shall stand dropped from the college rolls automatically if they fail in their respective examinations."

18. The appellants in the light of Rule II secured provisional admission in L. L. B., Part II Class.

19. Admittedly, they had failed in the Part I First Annual Examination, 1999 as a whole.

20. Now; as per the stance of B.Z. University, the embargo placed by the above quoted Regulation 5 came in their way of entry/appearance in Part II, First Annual Examination, 2000. to be held in February/March, 2001. Due to their failure in the said 1st Annual Examination of Part I their names were dropped from the college roll. The droppage of their names from the roll of the college was perfectly in accordance with the requirement of the F said quoted regulation. It was not at all beyond than that or any other rule governing the matter. So the contention of their side that the Second Annual Examination, 1999 was integral part of the First Annual Examination, 1999 Part I becomes absolutely devoid of any force and of no importance. Thus the word "Examinations" at the end of the said Rule IV is of no help to their case.

21. The learned Single Judge in Chamber due to such position has held that the droppage of their names from the college roll was not at all incorrect or illegal.

22. He has also taken into consideration the term "academic year" according to the B.Z. University's Calendar in the matter. The same is as under:-- "Academic year means the total period during which instruction is required for the purpose of any examination between the commencement of one examination and the commencement of the next examination twelve months later. "

23. This definition of academic year, if kept in view the same makes it abundantly clear that the period of 12 months had to run between the commencement of one examination and the next one. The same seems to have not run out in their (appellants) case.

24. The interpretation, thus made by the learned Single Judge of this term "Academic year", was according to the spirit of the same.

25. In view of the above position they (appellants) did not deserve the relief sought for by them in the afore-mentioned writ petition.

26. In this context, it is also significant to mention here that their conduct of migrating from one college to another was apparently not with good intention on their part. It was purposeful and definitely in violation of the Certificate No.IV signed by them on the back of the admission forms of 2nd Annual Examination, 1999. So their such conduct certainly is not endorsable. So on that count too they do not deserve relief prayed for by them.

27. The learned Single Judge in Chamber appears to have rightly dismissed their writ petition.

28. We therefore, have not found any force in the contentions raised on their behalf as well as the appeal. The instant appeal therefore, is dismissed. H.-B.T./M-2357/L Appeal dismissed.