IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
D.N. Patel, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Parth Sarthi Yadav - Appellant
Versus
All India Council of Technical Education - Respondent
LPA 67 of 2021
Decided On : 17-03-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. undisputed facts of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. legal competence and examination rules. (Para 6 , 17) |
| 3. sympathy cannot override legal rules. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. rules on completion time and mercy chances. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. no error in dismissing the lpa. (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 5678/2021 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 5679/2021-DELAY OF 20 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL
This application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 20 days in preferring the LPA.
Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and looking into the reasons stated in this application, there are reasonable reasons for the condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing LPA.
LPA 67/2021
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 10 of the Letter Patent Appeal Act of Delhi High court, seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4616/2020 and further directions to the respondents to allow the appellant to appear in one paper i.e., Applied Mathematics II.
2. Briefly stating, the undisputed facts are as under:
I. The appellant was pursuing the course of Diploma in Civil Engineering with Respondent No. 3 i.e., Chotu Ram Rural Institute of Technology. As per the curriculum, a candidate has to pass 36 papers for being awarded the Diploma. The course is for three years. As per the instructions issued by the respondent No.2 Board of Technical Education, a candidate can clear all the papers within two years beyond the period of three years.
II. It is further an admitted case that the appellant could not clear all the papers within the 2 years, over and above the 3 years. Even after the period of 2 years the appellant was left with three papers namely:
a) Hydraulics,
b) Applied Mathematics-II and
c) Element of Electrical Engineering.
III. Since the appellant was not able to clear the above 3 papers within the 2 years over and above the 3 years, a mercy chance was given by respondent No.2. A committee had been formed under the Chairmanship of JD (Plg.) to examine the eligibility and norms for the students to appear in the Mercy Examination of December, 2018 and with the subsequent approval of Hon'ble Dy. CM/Minister of Education and the following was decided:
a) Only one chance will be given to candidate to pass including theory and practical examination of their full Diploma course.
b) In future, no such opportunity will be provided to the students who are eligible to appear in the mercy chance examination held in December-2018.
c) No such opportunity on any ground shall be provided in future, except in the condition of natural calamities and disaster.
d) This will not be treated as precedent for future.
3. In the mercy chance, the petitioner appeared in the examination of the three papers. It is also admitted that the appellant cleared the other 2 papers namely, Hydraulics and Elements of Electrical Engineering but failed in the Applied Mathematics-II paper. Since the appellant did not clear the paper of Applied Mathematics-II, consequently he was not awarded a diploma. It is in this view of the matter, that the appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 4616/2020 seeking the following prayers:
"(a) Issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions, thereby directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to appear for his paper i.e. Applied Mathematics-I1 under mercy chance.
(b) Direct the Respondents No.1 & 2 to provide marks sheet for the papers which Petitioner appeared in mercy chance.
(c) Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."
4. The case of the appellant in the writ petition was that on 19.12.2018, the petitioner was suffering from high fever, when he appeared in the examination for Applied Mathematics-II, and within one and a half hours of his examinati
Established academic rules must be adhered to, and courts cannot grant relief based solely on sympathy if it contradicts legal competence and authority.
The main legal point established is that the absence of a specific provision for a 'Second Mercy Attempt' and the need for evidence to support claims of illness during an examination.
The legal principle established is that sympathy cannot be the basis for a court order, and a party must demonstrate a prima facie case for interference in a service matter.
The court upheld the maximum 8-year period for completing the MBBS course, ruling that no interim relief could be granted due to absence of a prima facie case.
When the disciplinary proceedings subject to challenge are dropped and the petitioner is exonerated, an appeal against such proceedings becomes redundant and lacks substance, though the party retains....
The finding on the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay in filing the appeal will remain a mere finding if the writ petition is ultimately allowed.
An appeal is not maintainable if it does not qualify as a judgment affecting vital rights, reaffirming procedural limits under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The court ruled that grace marks in examinations cannot be granted without legal or regulatory support, upholding academic integrity.
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.