Court rules in favor of Iranian citizen over withheld certificate, orders University to provide within two weeks.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, an Iranian citizen, in a case concerning the non-issuance of a Detailed Marks Certificate for B.A. Part I Examination. The University's accusation of the petitioner concealing facts was deemed baseless as he had disclosed his previous qualifications. The delay in issuing the certificate was attributed to the University's oversight. The court refuted the University's argument against the petitioner taking two major examinations simultaneously, emphasizing the lack of clarity in instructions provided to candidates. The University was directed to provide the certificate within two weeks and pay costs of Rs. 5000, upholding the petitioner's right to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

---

---

Issues:
- Non-issuance of Detailed Marks Certificate for B.A. Part I Examination
- Competency of a foreigner to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an Iranian citizen, completed B.A. Part II in 1988 and B.A. Part III in 1989. He faced issues regarding the recognition of his degree due to not studying for three years post 10+2 Examination. Despite provisionally passing B.A. Part I Examination in September 1990, the university did not issue the Detailed Marks Certificate, leading to the petitioner seeking a mandamus for the certificate issuance.

2. The University contended that the petitioner concealed information about passing B.A. Part II and Part III while applying for B.A. Part I. However, the petitioner had mentioned his previous qualifications in the application form. The University accepted his form, allowed him to appear for the exam, and even declared his result, placing him in compartment in English.

3. The court found the University's accusation of the petitioner concealing facts baseless. The petitioner had disclosed passing B.A. Part II, and the University failed to raise objections during the application process. The delay in issuing the certificate was attributed to the University's oversight, causing inconvenience to the petitioner without valid grounds.

4. The University's argument that the petitioner could not take two major examinations simultaneously was refuted. The instructions provided to candidates lacked clarity on which examinations were considered major or minor. Moreover, there was no evidence of inter-University jurisdiction to prevent candidates from appearing in multiple exams.

5. Considering the petitioner's situation, where he was fulfilling requirements for his native country, the court ruled in his favor. The University was directed to provide the necessary certificate within two weeks and pay costs amounting to Rs. 5000. The court upheld the petitioner's right to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing equality before the law for all individuals, including foreigners.

---