The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific challenges to notifications and the absence of vested rights for extra opportunities to clear examinations.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:

"a. Call for the records including the notifications/circulars/executive instructions of the Respondents apropos the conduct of the Annual Examinations of March/April to the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi vide which an opportunity to sit for the examinations was denied for the Petitioners and the like and issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order for quashing the same as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and malicious and as ultra vires the due process of law and in violation of the statutory provisions of the University of Delhi and Articles-14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India also the precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Courts from time to time and/or;

b. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order to direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioners and the like who pursued the LLB course after 2015-26 from the Faculty of Law to sit for the arrear papers during the Annual examination session of March/April 2023 and/or;

c. Pass any other or further order/s or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners had failed to clear the repeat exam held in August 2022, for their IVth semester subject, Constitutional Law-II (LB-401). He further states that the respondent-University vide notification dated 28.04.2022 allowed all the ex-students of final year of Under Graduate/Post Graduate/Professional Courses, who could not complete their degree within the stipulated period of 6 years, to take the Centenary Chance examination in failed/arrear subjects, to be conducted in March/April 2023. The petitioners' grievance is that they have not been allowed to sit for the concerned exam.

3. As per the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-University, it can be seen that the petitioners are not entitled to appear in the concerned examination, in view of the notification dated 28.04.2022. As per the said notification, only the students who were admitted during or before 2015-2016 and could not complete their degree within the stipulated period therein are entitled to appear in the said examination. The petitioners were admitted in the year 2017, 2018 and 2019 and are still pursuing their degree and hence, cannot avail the benefit of the said notification. The relevant paragraphs of the counter-affidavit are reproduced hereunder:

"2. With regard to the Petitioners, it is submitted that the Petitioners had taken admission in the year 2017, 2018 and 2019 and their span period is valid upto May/June, 2023, May/June, 2024 and May/June, 2025 according to their year of examination. It is submitted that the Petitioners are not eligible for the Centenary Chance Examination as they are within the currency of span period.

9. In the matter in hand, the Petitioners who are clearly covered by the examination rules and supplementary rules of University of Delhi, are trying to take the benefit of the Centenary Chance Examination 2022 although they are not eligible."

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that he has challenged the said notification, whereby, the respondent-University has denied the petitioners the opportunity to appear in the concerned examination.

5. A perusal of the relief clause indicates that the notification dated 28.04.2022 is not specifically challenged. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decisions in the cases of Krishna Priya Ganguly vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1984) 1 SC 307; Om Prakash & Ors. vs. Ram Kumar & Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 441 and Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen, (2010) 11 SCC 557 the court cannot grant a relief which has not been specifically prayed for by the parties. Since the notification in question is not