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

2023 Supreme(Del) 2215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Rahul Kumar – Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 15355 of 2022
Decided On : 29-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Petitioner in person.
Mr. Mohinder J. S Rupal, Advocate for R-1/University of Delhi.

Headnote:

Supplementary Examination - Misleading Information - Faculty of Law, University of Delhi - IV Semester - Competition Law - VI Semester - Principles of Taxation - [Aditya N. Prasad vs. University of Delhi, W.P.(C) 7365/2011, EC Resolution 8-6 dated 03.07.2017/14 15.07.2017] - The court discussed the legal sanctity of the prospectus and the binding character of the terms of the brochure, emphasizing that the prospectus is binding on the candidates and the state, and everyone is required to follow the same in letter and spirit. The court held that the rule mentioned in the prospectus will prevail over misleading notice/information available on the website of the Faculty of Law, and the petitioner is not entitled to take the supplementary examination for the backlog paper of 'Competition Law' pertaining to IV semester along with the supplementary examination for V and VI terms to be held at the end of VI term examination.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent-University to allow him to take his IV semester supplementary exam in the subject of 'Competition Law' along with the supplementary exam of VI semester. The petitioner claimed that he was misled by the information on the official website of the Faculty of Law, which led him to believe that the IV semester supplementary examination will be conducted along with the VI semester supplementary examination.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rule mentioned in the prospectus for the year 2019-20 will prevail over misleading notice/information available on the website of the Faculty of Law. The petitioner is not entitled to take the supplementary examination for the backlog paper of 'Competition Law' pertaining to IV semester along with the supplementary examination for V and VI terms to be held at the end of VI term examination.

Issues: The limited question before the court was whether the petitioner has any right to take supplementary examination of the backlog paper of 'Competition Law' pertaining to IV semester along with the specially conducted supplementary examination for V and VI semesters, based on the notice/information available on the website of Faculty of Law, or it is the rule for supplementary examination mentioned in the prospectus which would prevail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the binding character of the terms of the prospectus and held that the rule mentioned in the prospectus will prevail over misleading notice/information available on the website of the Faculty of Law.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ, stating that the petitioner is not entitled to take the supplementary examination for the backlog paper of 'Competition Law' pertaining to IV semester along with the supplementary examination for V and VI terms to be held at the end of VI term examination.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a third-year student pursuing LL.B. from Law Centre-1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondent-University to allow him to take his IV semester supplementary exam in the subject of 'Competition Law' along with supplementary exam of VI semester.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that he had a backlog examination of 'Competition Law' from the IV semester of LL.B. and the said backlog examination was scheduled to be conducted on 25.08.2022 as part of regular examination for the said semester. At the same time, the VI semester regular examinations were scheduled to be conducted from 10.08.2022 to 29.08.2022. However, a day prior to the backlog examination i.e. on 24.08.2022, the VI semester exam in the subject of 'Principles of Taxation' was scheduled to be held.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he came across notice/information titled as "Important Rules" displayed on the official website of the Faculty of Law (lawfaculty.du.ac.in) under the tab name 'Students', which reads as under:

    "Supplementary Examination

    After the completion of six Terms, a student of LLB may take supplementary examination in any paper of I or III Term along with the V Term supplementary examination and in any paper of II or IV Term along with the VI Term supplementary examination held for the purpose: Provided that all the thirty papers required for getting the LL.B. Degree have to be cleared within the span period of six years."

(emphasis supplied)

4. It is further case of the petitioner that in view of the above information available on the website, the petitioner was misled to believe that the IV semester supplementary examination will be conducted along with the VI semester supplementary examination. Since there was no time gap between the IV semester backlog examination and VI semester examination in the subject of 'Principles of Taxation', the petitioner was not in a position to thoroughly prepare and clear both examination, therefore, the petitioner prepared extensively for the VI semester examination in the subject of 'Principles of Taxation' instead of IV semester backlog examination in the subject of 'Competition Law' under the belief that in case he failed in IV semester backlog examination, he could again appear in the same along with the VI Term supplementary examination. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared for both the examinations, i.e., in the VI semester exam 'Principles of Taxation' held on 24.08.2022 and the IV semester backlog examination of 'Competition Law' held on the very next day i.e. on 25.08.2022.

5. The results of the VI semester examination along with backlog exam of IV semester taken by the petitioner was declared on 18.10.2022. The petitioner secured 62 marks out of 100 marks in the 'Principles of Taxation' whereas in the backlog exam of 'Competition Law' pertaining to the IV semester the petitioner could score only 24 marks out of 100 marks.

6. It has further been asserted in the writ petition that on an subsequent enquiry the petitioner learnt that the supplementary examination of IV semester will not be conducted along with the VI semester supplementary examination and such practice has been discontinued by the University by way of a notification in the year 2017. The petitioner claims that in view of the notice/information displayed on the website of the Faculty of Law he is entitled to take supplementary examination of IV Semester with specially conducted VI Semester Supplementary examination.

7. The case of the University of Delhi (respondent no.1), as borne out from a short counter affidavit is that the petitioner, who admittedly took admission in the LL.B course in the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi in the academic year 2019-20, will be governed by the terms and conditions stipulated in the prospectus of the Faculty of Law for the same academic year 2019-20.

8. According to the U

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