University cancellation of candidature after examination was invalid where attendance defect was not raised before permission to appear.

A university lost power to cancel a candidate's candidature on shortage of attendance after it had already permitted him to sit for the examination, because the ordinance allowed withdrawal only before the examination and the attendance certificate was merely provisional. The cancellation was therefore without jurisdiction on that ground. It also could not be sustained on the alleged absence of permission from superior officers, since no university rule required such permission and the impugned order did not rest on that basis. The cancellation order was quashed and the examination result was directed to be declared in accordance with the decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the University could cancel the appellant's candidature after permitting him to sit for the examination, in view of Clause 2(b) of Ordinance X of the Kurukshetra University Calendar, Volume I; (ii) Whether the cancellation could be sustained on the ground that the appellant had not obtained permission from his superior officers.

Issue (i): Whether the University could cancel the appellant's candidature after permitting him to sit for the examination, in view of Clause 2(b) of Ordinance X of the Kurukshetra University Calendar, Volume I.

Analysis: The provision made the attendance certificate provisional and permitted withdrawal only before the examination if the prescribed lectures had not been attended. Once the University had allowed the appellant to take the examination, the statutory power to withdraw candidature on that ground stood exhausted. Any alleged defect in attendance ought to have been scrutinised before permission to appear was granted, and the University could not later cancel the candidature on that basis.

Conclusion: The cancellation on the ground of shortage of attendance was not sustainable and was without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the cancellation could be sustained on the ground that the appellant had not obtained permission from his superior officers.

Analysis: No provision in the University statutes required prior permission from superior officers for an employed student to attend the evening law classes or appear in the examination. The impugned order did not itself rest on this ground, and a ground not contained in the order could not validly support the cancellation. The appellant's undertaking, given under pressure and without knowledge of any such legal requirement, did not deprive him of relief.

Conclusion: The cancellation could not be justified on the alleged want of employer permission.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to relief, the University's cancellation order was quashed, and the result of the examination was directed to be / declared in accordance with the decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute or university ordinance permits withdrawal of candidature only before the examination, the authority loses power to cancel candidature after the candidate has been allowed to sit; a later cancellation cannot be sustained on a ground not found in the impugned order or unsupported by the governing rules.

---