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

2016 Supreme(Del) 3908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
SAOMYA SAXENA – Petitioner
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & OTHERS – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 9696 of 2016 & C.M. No. 38822 of 2016
Decided On : 25-10-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lokesh Kumar.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.J.S. Rupal with Ms. Simran Jeet and Mr. Kirat Singh.

Mandatory Promotion Rules do not allow relaxation for students falling short of required papers

Headnote:

PROMOTION RULES - LLB Course - Promotion Rules applicable to the LL.B. course in the Faculty of Law - Mandatory nature of Promotion Rules and no relaxation allowed

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner seeks relaxation and promotion based on illness affecting exam performance

Finding of the Court:

Court analyzes Promotion Rules and Division Bench decision on mandatory nature of Rules

Ratio Decidendi: Mandatory Promotion Rules do not allow relaxation for students falling short of required papers

Result: Petition dismissed based on Division Bench decision and lack of merit

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for directing the respondents to give relaxation to the petitioner and to promote her to 5th term (3rd year LLB) three year course in the Campus Law Centre and further, to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to fill up the examination form for 5th term examination to be held in December 2016.

2. The petitioner took admission in LLB three year course commencing from the Academic Session 2014-15. The course is divided in six semesters with each semester having five papers. The petitioner has been able to clear 14 papers out of 20 in four semesters.

3. As per Promotion Rules applicable to LLB Course, for being promoted to Fifth Semester, a student has to clear at least 15 papers of the first, second, third and fourth term examinations taken together.

4. It is contended that the petitioner, on account of serious illness, either could not take some of the examinations or could not clear the same. It is contended that the petitioner, on account of ill health, could not clear 15 papers but has cleared 14 papers.

5. It is contended that, in similar circumstances, relaxation was granted by the respondents and students, who had not cleared 15 papers, were promoted to 3rd year. Reference is drawn to the letter dated 19.10.2015, issued by the Deputy Registrar, (Academic).

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit in Court. The same is taken on record.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Promotion Rules are mandatory and cannot be deviated from and, as per the Promotion Rules, a student has to clear at least 15 papers in four semesters cumulatively to be eligible for promotion to the fifth Semester. It is contended that since the petitioner has not qualified the mandatory 15 papers, the petitioner is not eligible for promotion to third year.

8. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S.N. Singh vs. Union of India, 2003 (69) DRJ 502 (DB), wherein, the Division Bench quashed the promotion of all students, who had cleared 14 or less papers upto the fifth term but had been promoted by the Respondent University. It is contended that the Division Bench has held that the said Promotion Rules are mandatory and no relaxation can be given under the Promotion Rules.

9. With regard to the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on letter dated 19.10.2016, it is contended that the said relaxation was granted in exceptional circumstances and that also in view of the fact that the course, in which the students concerned were studying, was being discontinued and there was going to be introduction of a new scheme of course for LLB and there would have been no faculty available for teaching the old course. It is contended that, in these exceptional circumstances, the relaxation was granted and, in any event, the resolution itself records that it would not be treated as a precedent.

10. It is further contended that even if an incorrect relaxation was granted, the petitioner cannot claim negative equality as equality is a concept of positivity and if an illegality has been committed, the same cannot be perpetuated or permitted to be repeated on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

11. The relevant Promotion Rules read as under:-

"Promotion Rules applicable to the LL.B. course in the Faculty of Law.

(i) No student shall be promoted to the next term, if he/she has been detained in the examination for shortage of attendance.

(ii) Subject to sub-rule (i) above, a student of LL.B. First, Third or Fifth Term shall be eligible for promotion to second, Fourth or Sixth Term, respectively irrespective of the number of courses in which he/she has failed to pass or failed to appear in the First, Third or Fifth Term examinations.

(iii) Subject to sub-rules (i) and (ii) above, a student of LL.B. second Terms shall be eligible for promoti























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
whatsapp-icon Back to top