IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J.
Ajay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
University Of Delhi - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 3593 of 2021
Decided On : 16-12-2021
Mandamus - University Regulations - The court dismissed a writ petition seeking permission for a student to appear in a cost accounting paper for the B.Com degree, as the student had exceeded the maximum span period for completing the degree and was not eligible for further attempts under the university regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student of the University of Delhi, sought permission to appear in a cost accounting paper for the B.Com degree after exceeding the maximum span period for completing the degree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted as he had already exceeded the maximum span period for completing the degree and was not eligible for further attempts under the university regulations.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, who had exceeded the maximum span period for completing the degree, could be permitted to appear in a cost accounting paper for the B.Com degree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's reliance on university regulations regarding the period of conviction and custody was misplaced, as he had already exceeded the maximum span period for completing the degree and was not debarred from taking the examinations on the grounds of conviction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court held that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted as it would exceed the scope of the university regulations.
JUDGMENT
Prateek Jalan, J. - The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing].
1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"A) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of mandamus permitting the petitioner to appear in B.Com 3rd years cost accounting paper for the year 2020-2021.
B) Pass any other order in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice"
2. The petitioner was a student of the respondent-University of Delhi ["the University"] in the B.Com. degree ["the degree"]. He was admitted to the University in 2012 and took examinations of the degree in the years 2013 and 2014. However, he was arrested on 09.03.2015 in connection with FIR No. 168/2015, under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Ranhola. The petitioner was convicted of the offences by a judgment of the Trial Court 18.10.2018. He filed Criminal Appeal No. 141/2019, which was allowed by a judgment of this Court dated 30.09.2020 and was released immediately thereafter.
3. Although the petitioner had taken all the papers of the degree examinations during the period 2012-2018, he failed in one paper, i.e. Cost Accounting. The grievance with which he has approached this Court is that he has not been permitted to sit for the said paper again as the University contends that he has already completed the span period of six years during which the degree is required to be completed under the Ordinances of the University.
4. The relevant stipulation with regard to the span period is contained in Ordinance VIII of the Ordinances of the University, which states that a candidate for the B.Com. degree must complete it within six of admission to the first year class and five years after admission to the second year class. As the petitioner was admitted in the year 2012, he has not been permitted to take the examinations again.
5. Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on Ordinance I Rule 5 of the Ordinances, which reads as follows:
"5. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other Ordinance, no person who has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude shall be admitted to a course of study or permitted to take any examination of the University until a period of two years has elapsed from the date of expiry of the sentence imposed on him. However, the Academic Council may, in a special case, exempt any person from the operation of this Rule."
6. According to Mr. Singh, the petitioner, having been arrested in March, 2015 and convicted on 18.10.2018, was not eligible to take the examinations after his conviction until two years thereafter had elapsed. He submits that the petitioners appeal having been allowed only on 30.09.2020, the petitioner be permitted to take the examinations at this stage.
7. Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, points out that the petitioner had, in fact, taken the examinations in every year from 2013 to 2018, including during the period that he was in custody. He passed in all his papers, except Cost Accounting. According to Mr. Mehrotra, Ordinance I Rule 5 has no application to the facts of the present case as the petitioner was never prohibited from taking the examinations. Mr. Mehrotra also relies upon a notification of the University dated 10.10.2012, which states that no application for a special chance beyond the stipulated period shall be considered by the University.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. Admittedly, the petitioner was admitted in 2012, and the span period came to an end in 2018. He has taken his examinations even while he was in custody. The petitioner has himself placed on record the marksheet of his examinations in the year 2018, declared on 10.10.2018, before he suffered the conviction. Unfortunately, he was unable to clear one paper even wi
The main legal point established in the judgment is that university regulations regarding the maximum span period for completing a degree are binding, and relief cannot be granted to a student who ha....
A student cannot be granted additional examination attempts beyond the stipulated span period in university ordinances, even post-conviction, unless expressly allowed.
University may permit LL.B. redo candidates to write exams under exceptional N+2+1 extension upon document submission.
Point of Law : A candidate who passed B.Ed. examination of this University or B.Ed examination of another University recognized by Syndicate may be permitted to take a special course in a subject if ....
The judgment established that shortage of attendance due to being in judicial custody was not a ground for condoning the shortage of lectures, as per the University Ordinance.
The judgment establishes the principle that students must meet minimum attendance requirements and may only be exempted from them under specific conditions as provided by the relevant legal provision....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.