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

2024 Supreme(Del) 416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Vanshika - Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 16398 of 2023
Decided On : 19-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Prafulla, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Mr. Hardik Rupal, Advocates, for the Respondents.

A university cannot deny a student the right to continue studies or withhold examination results based on procedural failures, especially after allowing the student to attend classes and take exams.

Headnote:(A) Education Law - Writ Petition - University Guidelines - The petitioner, enrolled in a B.A. (Hons.) course, was denied the opportunity to take her first semester examination due to a failed fee transaction, despite assurances from university authorities. The petitioner attended classes for the second and third semesters, paid fees, and attempted the second semester examination. The university withheld her results, claiming she was not promoted due to non-submission of the examination form for the first semester. The court found that the petitioner was eligible to take the first semester examination and had been misled by university officials. The court ruled that the university could not deny her the right to continue her studies based on a failure to pay fees, as she had been allowed to attend classes and take examinations. (Paras 1-101)

(B) Legal Principles - Estoppel - The court emphasized that once a student is allowed to undertake examinations, the university cannot later withdraw that permission based on prior ineligibility or procedural failures. (Paras 24-32)

(C) Equity - The court highlighted the importance of fairness, stating that the petitioner should not be penalized for the university's administrative failures. (Paras 96-100)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was enrolled in a B.A. (Hons.) course but could not take her first semester examination due to a failed fee transaction. She was assured she could take the first semester exam with the third semester exam. She attended classes and attempted the second semester exam but her results were withheld.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was eligible to take the first semester examination and had been misled by university officials. The university's actions were deemed unfair and unjust.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was eligible to take the first semester examination and whether the university could deny her the right to continue her studies based on a procedural failure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the university could not deny the petitioner the right to continue her studies based on a failure to pay fees, as she had been allowed to attend classes and take examinations.

Result: The petition was allowed, directing the university to declare the second semester result and permit the petitioner to continue her studies.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner's case

1. The petitioner enrolled on 21 October 2022 as a student to the B.A. (Hons.), a four year course in the Kalindi College for Women, Delhi University (DU).

2. It is asserted, in the present writ petition, that the petitioner filled in the application form for undertaking her first semester examination in February 2023 and deposited requisite fees. However, as there was a failure in the transaction for payment of fees, no admit card was issued to the petitioner so as to enable her to undertake the first semester examination.

3. It is sought to be contended that, despite having not undertaken the first semester examination, the petitioner was assured, by the relevant authorities, that she could undertake the first semester examination along with her third semester examination without any complications.

4. Based on this assurance, the petitioner attended the second semester classes in the Kalindi College.

5. On 11 June 2023, the petitioner deposited the fees of her second semester examination, consequent to which an admit card was issued to her by the DU enabling her to attempt the second semester examinations, on 10 October 2023. Accordingly, the petitioner undertook the second semester examination from 18 July 2023 onwards.

6. The University did not release the result of the second semester examinations of the petitioner. The petitioner, nonetheless, attended the classes of the third semester of the BA (Hons) English course, which commenced from 16 August 2023.

7. Fees for the second year of her B.A. (Hons.) English course (consisting of the third and fourth semesters) were also deposited by the petitioner.

8. The petitioner was not permitted to fill in the examination form to undertake her third semester examination.

9. Numerous attempts to interact with the University authorities in this regard met with no favourable response.

10. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition before this Court, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent

    (i) to declare her second semester result,

    (ii) to allow the petitioner to attend her third semester examination and

    (iii) to allow the petitioner to continue with the second year of her B.A. (Hons.) course, without losing any academic year or the progress made thus far.

11. Counter affidavits have been filed by the University as well as by the college, and a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit of the college, though no rejoinder has been filed to the counter affidavit of the University.

Stand of the College in its counter-affidavit

12. The counter affidavit filed by the college points out that, as per Clause 4[4. A student who appears in an odd-semester examination or who was eligible to appear in the odd-semester examinations but remains absent in any or all of the papers of the said semester, shall move on to the next semester irrespective of his/her result in the said examinations provided examination form for both the odd and even semester examination is duly submitted and requisite fee paid by the candidate.] of the NEP-UGCF 2002 Guidelines dated 6 March 2023, applicable to the DU, a student who had not submitted the examination form for any particular semester could not be promoted to the next semester. Accordingly, the petitioner could not have attended any classes in the second semester. Without thus attending any second semester class, avers the counter affidavit of the college, the petitioner deposited, online, the examination form for her second semester examinations, scheduled to be held in May/June 2023. She also appeared in the said examination. It was later that the DU realised that the petitioner had actually not been promoted to the second semester, whereupon her results were withheld.

13. It is further averred, in the counter affidavit of the college, that the petitioner had again taken admission in the first semester of her B.A. (Hons.) English course in the 2

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