SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
Jennifer John – Appellant
Versus
Symbiosis International (Deemed University) and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 16724 of 2025
Decided On : 11-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Subra Karmakar
For the Respondents: Aditya Pimple, Aakash Joshi, Ravi Bharadwaj, Amarjit Prasad, Gaurav Kumar

A university can accommodate students' requests for exam attendance, ensuring that health issues are considered while maintaining academic integrity and progression.

Headnote:(A) Education Law - Right to Appear for Exams - The Committee for Redressal of Concerns (CRC) had called the petitioner to appear but she failed to do so, claiming health issues. The institution allowed the petitioner to take special exams despite previous non-participation, ensuring she would not lose an academic year. (Paras 4-6)

(B) Consent Orders - The Court disposed of the petition by consent due to resolution of the issue at hand. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner did not attend a scheduled CRC meeting and exams; a medical certificate was submitted afterward. The university facilitated the petitioner’s appearance in upcoming special exams.

Findings of Court:
The petition is disposed of by consent as the university granted necessary accommodations to the petitioner.

Issues: The key issue was the petitioner’s participation in the exams despite claiming health issues.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the university’s collaboration with the petitioner to allow her to complete her academic requirements.

Result: Petition disposed of by consent.

Table of Content
1. hearing details of the parties (Para 1 , 2)
2. affidavit in response and petitioner's non-attendance (Para 3 , 4)
3. provisions for special exams and academic continuity (Para 5 , 6)
4. petitioner's merit and resolution of issues (Para 7 , 8)
5. conclusion and disposal of the petition (Para 9)

JUDGMENT :

1. We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate appearing for the Deemed University.

2. The dates and events tendered by the learned Advocate for the Deemed University, are reproduced verbatim, as under :

3. The learned Advocate appearing for the Deemed University, has also tendered an affidavit in reply dated 10th December, 2025. The same is taken on record.

4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner does not dispute that though the Petitioner was called upon to appear before the Committee for Redressal of Concerns (CRC) on 15th October, 2025, she did not appear. Her parents sent a request through a friend, who submitted it to the Committee, stating that the Petitioner is not attending the CRC. No request was made for a deferred hearing. So also, when it came to appearing for the exams for 6 subjects, which the Institution had permitted the Petitioner to take, she voluntarily did not appear even in a single exam. 17 days after the exams, a medical certificate was produced from the Law School’s Health Centre, stating that the Petitioner has vertigo.

5. Be that as it may, the Institution has volunteered to allow the Petitioner to appear for the two CNG (Course Not Granted) subjects in the Special Exams to be conducted tomorrow for the subjects Corporate Law Practice and Civil Law Practice. Arrangements would be made on an urgent basis to enable the Petitioner to appear for the said exams, which are scheduled on 16th December, 2025 and 17th December, 2025, along with a few other students for whom a Special Exam is being arranged, in the light of the recent order of the Delhi High Court dated 3rd November, 2025 passed in W.P. (CRL) No.793 of 2017, CRL.M.As. No.16639 of 2017 and 8850 of 2024.

6. The learned Advocate for the Deemed University further submits that the University would render full cooperation to the Petitioner to enable her to appear for the remaining 6 subjects in the Backlog Exam in March/April 2026 and she would not lose any Academic Year. If the Petitioner passes in the said subjects, she would not lose a single Academic Semester or year.

7. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that though the Petitioner may have failed earlier, she is a meritorious student.

8. Since the Petitioner’s problem has been resolved with the cooperation of the Deemed University, which has shown magnanimity, this Petition is disposed off, by consent.

9. Since this order has been dictated in open Court, the parties will not wait for the order to be uploaded.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top