# Ravindra Pratap v. I.E.R.T., Allahabad and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 202
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-12-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42901 of 2004
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-pratap-v-i-e-r-t-allahabad-and-others-40352
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Rules-15-B-
Diploma
Electronic Engineering 3 years course-
Back paper must be cleared within
maximum duration as per rule 15-B it
can not be extended beyond that.

Held: Para 7

In the opinion of the Court the language
of Rule 15-B is clear and specific. It
leaves no room for doubt. In no case a
candidate can be permitted to continue
beyond the maximum duration provided
for
under
Rule
15-B.

In
such
circumstances it is not necessary to refer
to any other provision including Rule 16
or the purpose for which the Multi Point
Entry and Credit System has been
introduced inasmuch as any opportunity
to a candidate to appear in a back paper
must be completed within the maximum
duration provided under Rule 15-B. Rule
16 or the purpose for which the Multi
Point Entry and Credit System has been
introduced cannot in any way extend the
maximum duration provided under Rule
15-B.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[2005
 202
necessary to consider other submissions
raised by the counsel for the petitioner.
As observed above, it is open to the State
Government to exercise its suo moto
power. In the result the order of the State
Government passed in the revision dated
15.12.2004 condoning the delay in filing
the revision and entertaining the revision,
is set aside. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated above. Parties shall
bear their own costs.
Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42901 of 2004

Ravindra Pratap

...Petitioner
Versus
Institute of Engineering & Rural Technology,
Allahabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kshitij Shailendra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rahul Sripat
S.C.

Multi Point Entry & Credit System
Examination
Rules-15-B-
Diploma
Electronic Engineering 3 years course-
Back paper must be cleared within
maximum duration as per rule 15-B it
can not be extended beyond that.

Held: Para 7

In the opinion of the Court the language
of Rule 15-B is clear and specific. It
leaves no room for doubt. In no case a
candidate can be permitted to continue
beyond the maximum duration provided
for
under
Rule
15-B.

In
such
circumstances it is not necessary to refer
to any other provision including Rule 16
or the purpose for which the Multi Point
Entry and Credit System has been
introduced inasmuch as any opportunity
to a candidate to appear in a back paper
must be completed within the maximum
duration provided under Rule 15-B. Rule
16 or the purpose for which the Multi
Point Entry and Credit System has been
introduced cannot in any way extend the
maximum duration provided under Rule
15-B.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra
Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri
Rahul Sripat Advocate on behalf of
respondents 1 and 2, and the Standing
Counsel on behalf of respondent no. 3State.

2. The petitioner, Ravindra Pratap
was admitted to 3 years Degree Course of
Diploma in Electronic Engineering under
Multi Point Entry and Credit System
(hereinafter referred to as MPECS) in the
Institute
of
Engineering
and
Rural
Technology,
Allahabad
(hereinafter
referred to as the IERT) for the academic
session 1998-99. The petitioner failed to
clear examination of the subject of
Analog in Electronics 3rd semester and
has also failed in two papers in 4th
semester examination. The petitioner is
aggrieved by the order passed by the
Director of the IERT dated 10.08.2004
whereby the Director with reference to
Rule 15-B of the Multi Point Entry and
Credit
System
Examination
Rules
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules)
adopted by the IERT since 1993, provided
that no further chance/attempt can be
given to the petitioner for clearing the
back paper of 3rd semester. This order is
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All]
Ravindra Pratap V. I.E.R.T., Allahabad and others
203
under challenge in the present writ
petition.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it is
contended that the aforesaid order passed
by the Director is manifestly illegal
inasmuch as under the provisions of Rule
16 of the Rules read with the purpose for
which the Multi Purpose Entry and Credit
System was introduced, the petitioner is
entitled to be permitted to undertake the
back papers in respect of the examinations
which the petitioner could not clear,
pertaining to 3rd semester and that Rule
15-B of the Rules is to be read down in
the light of the provisions providing for
back papers. Reliance has been placed in
that regard upon the judgment of this
Court reported in 1999 UPLBEC 2377
(Abhishek
Rathor
Versus
Director,
Institute
of
Engineering
and
Rural
Technology, Allahabad)

4. On behalf of the respondents it is
submitted that the petitioner was admitted
in the year 1998. The period of six years
subsequent to his admission in the said
course has expired in the year 2004 and
therefore, under Rule 15-B of the Rules
he is not entitled to any further
opportunity of appearing in back papers
or to continue as a student in the said
course.

5. In order to appreciate the
controversy raised between the parties it
would be appropriate to refer to Rule 15B of the Rules which is quoted
hereunder:--

"To
complete
a
particular
diploma
programmed
the
maximum
duration
shall
be
double the number of academic
years prescribed."

6. From the aforesaid rule it is
apparently clear that the entire diploma
programmed is required to be completed
by the petitioner within the maximum
duration which shall be double the
number of academic years prescribed. It
is not in dispute that the number of
academic years prescribed for the course
of Diploma in Electronic Engineering is 3
years
and
therefore
the
maximum
duration under Rule 15-B works out to 6
years only in respect of the said diploma
course. The petitioner as such cannot be
permitted to complete the said diploma
programmed after expiry of the said 6
years from the year of his admission. The
petitioner also admits the aforesaid legal
position, however, he contends that the
said Rule 15-B be read down in the light
of the provisions of Rule 16 as well as in
light of the purpose for which the
aforesaid Multi Point Entry and Credit
System was introduced.

7. In the opinion of the Court the
language of Rule 15-B is clear and
specific. It leaves no room for doubt. In
no case a candidate can be permitted to
continue beyond the maximum duration
provided for under Rule 15-B. In such
circumstances it is not necessary to refer
to any other provision including Rule 16
or the purpose for which the Multi Point
Entry and Credit System has been
introduced inasmuch as any opportunity
to a candidate to appear in a back paper
must be completed within the maximum
duration provided under Rule 15-B. Rule
16 or the purpose for which the Multi
Point Entry and Credit System has been
introduced cannot in any way extend the
maximum duration provided under Rule
15-B. So far as the case Abhishek Rathor
Versus Director, Institute of Engineering
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[2005
 204
and Rural Technology, Allahabad(Supra)
relied upon by the petitioner is concerned
it has no application to the facts of the
present case inasmuch as in the said
judgment the applicability of Rule 15-B
was not under consideration.

The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE K.N. OJHA, J.

Criminal Revision No.770 of 2005

Umesh Chand Verma and others

 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and others

...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri G.S. Chaturvedi
Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi
Sri S.B. Kochar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri D.N. Wali
Smt. Praveen Shukla
A.G.A.

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-S-319offence under section 498-A/304 I.P.C.-
after framing charge sheet-on the basis
of statement made-prima-facie sufficient
material found to summon the accused
person to face the trial-although not
named in FIR, nor the name disclosed
during
investigation-issuing
the
summons is proper remedy-N.B.W. can
be issued if they failed to appear-positive
directions issued accordingly.

Held: Para 9 and 10

It is not evidence or infirmity of evidence
during the investigation which is the
basis to decide as to whether the case is
to be proceeded against the applicants
or not, but it is the evidence or
statement made after the charge is
framed, which is the basis for proceeding
against those accused against whom
charge sheet has not been submitted and
final report was submitted. Therefore
when there is clear statement of the
complainant
prima
facie
there
is
sufficient
evidence
to
summon
the
accused person to face the trial.

In the circumstances of the case issue of
summon was the proper remedy rather
than non-bailable warrant and upto this
extent impugned order deserves to be
modified.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1979 SC-339
1993 SCC Crl. 470
1994 Crl. Law Journal-3330
AIR SC 771
AIR 1978 SC-514
AIR 1964 (1) SCR 639
AIR 2004 (57) 390

(Delivered by Hon'ble K.N.Ojha, J.)

1. Heard Sri G.C. Chaturvedi
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Nikhil Chaturvedi for the applicants, Smt.
Praveen Shukla learned AGA for opposite
party No.1 State of U.P. and Sri D.N.
Wali learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 Arun Kumar Verma and have gone
through the record.

2. Instant criminal revision has been
filed against order dated 10.2.05 passed
by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court no.3 Agra in Sessions Trial
No. 455 of 2004 State v. Shyam Verma
whereby the applicants Umesh Chandra
Verma, Smt. Laxmi Verma, Smt. Mohini
Verma, Rishi Verma and Chanchal Verma