Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010132622024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3389/2024 PREMJIT DAS S/O- HARI SANKAR DAS, VILL.- LANKA LANKESHWARI GRANT, P.S. AND P.O. LANKA, PIN- 782446, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE GAUHATI UNIVERSITY AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, GAUHATI UNIVERSITY, JALUKBARI, DIST. KAMRUP(M), GUWAHATI-781014. 2:THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION GAUHATI UNIVERSITY JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP(M) GHY-781014. 3:KRISHNA BORA B.ED. COLLEGE WARD NO. 10 L.P. ROAD LANKA ASSAM PIN- 782446 DIST. HOJAI. 4:THE PRINCIPAL THE KRISHNA BORA B.ED. COLLEGE WARD NO. 10 L.P. ROAD LANKA ASSAM PIN- 782446 DIST. HOJAI Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B BHUYAN, MS B BORA,MR A TALUKDAR,MR J DAS,MS M.CHAKRABORTY,MS R DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, G U, MS S. BASAK(R-4),MR. B HALDAR (R-4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 29.01.2025 Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. B. Haldar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. The grievance, being sought to be addressed in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that the petitioner has pursued B.Ed. course from the respondent No. 3 college of which the respondent No. 4 is the Principal, and he had filed one Form for appearing in the B.Ed. Final Examination and paid the requisite fees to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and online Admit Card was issued to him. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4, Principal of the College, refused to sign the Admit Card and stated that the petitioner will not be allowed to sit in the examination hall. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition, for allowing him to appear in the B.Ed. Final Examination. 3. Then, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, vide order dated 27.06.2024, was pleased to grant permission to the petitioner to appear in the B.Ed. Final Examination with a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the result of the petitioner shall not be declared without the leave of the Court. Page No.# 3/5 4. Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that after the permission being granted by this Court, the petitioner had appeared in the examination and the result of the other candidates have already been published by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and as there was a direction of this Court, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not published the result of the petitioner, and that as the petitioner had appeared in the TET Examination,conducted by the Government of Assam and that there is a requirement for furnishing the mark sheet of B.Ed. Final Examination in the TET, and unless the result of the petitioner is declared and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are granted leave to declarethe same, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss, and therefore, Ms. Bhuyan has contended to grant leave of this Court to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to declare the result of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. B. Haldar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that he has objection in granting leave to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to publish the result of the petitioner as he was absent in the college for about three months without leave of the college authorities and that he had submitted leave of absence for three months without specifying the dates of his ailment and of his father. Mr. Haldar also submits that the petitioner did not submit his assignment within time and created political pressure upon the Principal to allow him to sit in the examination and he also remained absent in the workshop on Art held on 01.04.2024, which was mandatory for all trainees, and as such, he cannot claim that he had done all formalities to sit in the examination. Further, Mr. Haldar submits that the petitionerhad intentionally violated the rules of the college while pursuing B.Ed. degree and that the discipline and sincerity required for a B.Ed. student is found absent in the case of the petitioner, and therefore, it is contended not to grant leave to the Page No.# 4/5 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to declare the result of B.Ed. Final Examination of the petitioner. 6. It is to be noted here that the petitioner has submitted reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4 denying the statements and averments made in the said affidavit-in-opposition. 7. Per contra, Mr.Phukan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that he has no objection in the event of granting leave to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by this Court to declare the result of B.Ed. Final Examination of the petitioner, as the respondent No. 2 had already signed the Admit Card issued to the petitioner. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the order dated 27.06.2024, by which the petitioner was allowed to sit in the B.Ed. Final Examination, by this Court. 9. It appears that while allowing the petitioner to sit in the B.Ed. Final Examination, there was a direction not to declare his result without leave of this Court, and it is contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have already declared the result of other candidates,who had appeared in the B.Ed. Final Examination, and as there was direction of this Court, the result of the petitioner could not be declared. 10. I have taken note of the objection so raised by Mr.Haldar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. It is not in dispute that in order to appear in a Final Examination one has to fill up the Form by depositing requisite fees. In the case in hand, the petitioner was allowed to fill up the Form by depositing requisite fees and accordingly, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had issued Admit Page No.# 5/5 Card and respondent No.2 signed the same. And pursuant to the order of this Court, he was allowed to sit in the Examination. 11. Now, the question arises if the petitioner had failed to submit the assignment and also failed to attend the mandatory workshop and he violates the Rule of the College and he lacks the sincerity and discipline required for pursuing B.Ed. course, then the question arises as to why and how he was allowed to fill up the Form and why examination fees was collected from him. The respondent No.4 having allowed him to fill up the Form after collection of requisite fees ought notto have raise objection in allowing the petitioner to sit in B.Ed. Examination and now in declaring the result by the respondent No.4. The petitioner is appearing in TET for which his mark sheet in B.Ed. Examination is required. The result of the other candidates had already been declared by the respondent No.2. Thus, the objection so raised at this stage, to the considered opinion of this Court defies any logic and bereft of merit and consequently, stands overruled. 12. In the result, and in the given factual backdrop especially taking note of the submission of Mr.Phukan, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and also taking note of the objection of Mr.Haldar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, this Court is inclined to grant leave to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to declare the result of B.Ed. Final Examination of the petitioner. The result be published as soon as practicable. 13. In terms of above, writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant