Sumedha v. The Chancellor Of The Universities And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22479 of 2018 ====================================================== Sumedha D/o Pramod Kumar Dubey, Resident of Mohalla- Manspuri Azad Nagar Road No. 2, P.S.-Kankarbagh, Sampatchak, Patna. Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Chancellor Of The Universities, Governor's Secretariat, Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

2.

The Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Registrar, Patna University, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Controller of Examinations, Patna University, Patna. 5.

The Head of Department of English, Patna University, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sangeet Deokuliar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Rajendra Kumar Giri ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 02-04-2019 The grievance of the petitioner is that though as per the regulations, the petitioner cannot be declared pass in the M.A. (English) result without passing the Continuous Internal Assessment Examination, nonetheless, the University has declared the M.A. (English) result of the petitioner and has shown her to have passed in the said examination. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Patna University submits that the Ordinance and Regulations for the two years (four Semester) post graduate course under the choice post graduate scheme is effective from the Sessions 2018-19 and the petitioner's Sessions is 2016-18, hence the said

Patna High Court CWJC No.22479 of 2018(8) dt.02-04-2019 2/2 regulation would not be applicable to the petitioner nor the petitioner is required to pass the Continuous Internal Assessment Examination, hence, M.A. (English) result of the petitioner, which has been declared by the University and the petitioner has been also declared to have been passed in the said examination, shall be valid for all purposes throughout the country.

Having regard to the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the Patna University, I do not find that the present writ petition requires to be proceeded with any further. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Patna University, also does not wish to press the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Tiwary/- U