Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
ANKITA MEENA – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI – RESPONDENTS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 26484 OF 2018 and INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 102466 OF 2020 in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 26484 OF 2018
Decided on : 22-01-2021
Education – LL.B. Examination – Denial of permission to appear in 4th Semester LL.B. Examination – Petitioner has completed course in entirety – Results of all semester examinations except 5th Semester Supplementary Examination has already been declared – Lis in SLP, though relates to 4th Semester, does not actually survive for an active adjudication on account of subsequent developments – Once petitioner has completed course and also written 5th and 6th Semester Examinations and even got results of all semester examinations except 5th Semester Supplementary Examinations published, adjudication of dispute in SLP will only be a matter of academic interest – I.A. and SLP disposed of directing University to declare 5th Semester supplementary Examination results of petitioner and issue provisional degree along with necessary certificates, if she had passed the examinations, subject to petitioner clearing other formalities – This order is passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of case. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Challenging an order of Single Judge, confirmed by division bench in an intra-court appeal, refusing to interfere with the decision of the University denying permission to her to appear in 4th Semester LL.B. Examination, a student has come up with the above SLP.
Findings of Court:
Once petitioner has completed course and also written 5th and 6th Semester Examinations and even got results of all semester examinations except 5th Semester Supplementary Examinations published, adjudication of dispute in SLP will only be a matter of academic interest.
Result : I.A. and SLP disposed of with directions.
ORDER :
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. Challenging an order of the learned single judge, confirmed by the division bench in an intra-court appeal, refusing to interfere with the decision of the University denying permission to her to appear in the 4th Semester LLB Examination, a student has come up with the above SLP.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the University.
3. The petitioner joined the 3-year LLB Course at Law Centre-II, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi in August, 2016. By the time she joined the course she was already married for about 5 months.
4. The petitioner completed the first 3 semesters without any hindrance. However, she fell short of the required attendance during the 4th Semester, due to two difficulties. One was that she gave birth to a baby on 22.02.2018, disabling her to attend the classes till the end of March, 2018. The second difficulty was that the Delhi University Teachers’ Association went on a strike from 16.03.2018 and hence the University could not conduct the minimum number of classes as prescribed by Rule 10 of the Bar Council of India Rules.
5. Therefore, the petitioner was detained by a notice dated 09.05.2018 and not permitted to write the 4th Semester Examinations scheduled to commence from 12.05.2018.
6. The petitioner therefore filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No.5194 of 2018 on the file of the High Court of Delhi seeking a direction to the University to permit her to appear for the 4th Semester Examinations. But the writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 15.05.2018.
7. An intra-court appeal was filed by the petitioner in LPA No.294 of 2018, but the same was dismissed by the Division Bench by an order dated 07.09.2018. It is against the said order that the student has come up with the above SLP.
8. On 05.10.2018 this Court ordered the issue of notice in the SLP. While doing so this Court also permitted the petitioner to attend classes at her own risk on completion of the required formalities. Subsequently, several orders were passed by this Court, which are presented in a tabular column by the petitioner in her application I.A.No.102466 of 2020. It reads as follows:
| S. No. | Date | Order(s) |
| 1. | 19.11.2018 | We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the application for directions. “Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, states that if the applicant is qualified to appear in the examination, she will be allowed according to law.” In view of the above, the instant application for directions is disposed of. |
| 2. | 15.02.2019 | “Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the instant application for directions, we direct the respondent-University to permit the applicant to attend the classes of VI Semester as per this Court’s order dated 05.10.2018, on completion of the required formalities.” The interlocutory application for directions is allowed accordingly. |
| 3. | 05.07.2019 | The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (aa), which reads as under: “Direct the Respondent to permit the applicant to appear in the V Semester Supplementary Examination to be held on 06.07.2019, as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court dated 05.10.2018, 19.11.2018 and 15.02.2019.” The result will be subject to the outcome of this special leave petition. |
| 4. | 27.08.2019 | List after two weeks. In the meanwhile, counter affidavit may be filed. |
| 5. | 28.07.2020 | “Having heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the instant application for directions, we direct that the results of the present applicant/petitioner viz., Ankita Meena, for the IV and VI Semester results shall be declared by the respondent(s).” The instant applicant applications for |
Adjudication of dispute in SLP will only be a matter of academic interest when spirit of lis is already gone.
The court emphasized the importance of considering a student's legitimate expectations and the impact of University rules on academic progression, especially in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The court determined that the university's denial of examination permission based on attendance was arbitrary, emphasizing the need for adherence to judicial directives and consideration of individua....
Court ruled that educational institutions must act fairly and acknowledge students' legitimate expectations, particularly after allowing them to participate in examinations despite procedural discrep....
A candidate cannot gain admission to higher semester classes without clearing all requisite prior examinations, and obtaining interim relief through suppression of facts is impermissible.
The court upheld interim orders for provisional admission in light of arbitrary treatment by an educational institution affecting a student's rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
