Back
2015 Supreme(Guj) 108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.M. THAKER, J.
NARENDRA CHAMPAKLAL TRIVEDI - Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8974 of 2014
Decided on: 20/02/2015
Advocate Appeared:
MR AKSHAT KHARE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS SUMAN KHARE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR S.N. SHELAT, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MRS V D NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1-2
The resolutions dated 1.6.2014 by the Academic Council and Executive Council superseded the earlier resolutions, and the petitioner's delay in taking action prevented any effective relief.
Headnote:
LLM - Examination Trials - Circular No.127, University Order dated 22/06/2011, Minutes of Meeting dated 18/08/2012 - The court discussed the circulars and resolutions related to the old LLM course, the extension of trials until 2015, and the subsequent decisions by the Academic Council and Executive Council. The court concluded that the resolutions dated 1.6.2014 superseded the earlier resolutions, and the petitioner's delay in taking action prevented any effective relief.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction for the respondent authorities to conduct examinations for old course LLM students and check answer sheets as per merits. The petitioner had secured admission in the LLM (Criminal) course in 2005-06, which was discontinued in 2011-12. The petitioner challenged the decision of not conducting examinations for the old course after April 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the resolutions dated 1.6.2014 by the Academic Council and Executive Council superseded the earlier resolutions, and the petitioner's delay in taking action prevented any effective relief. The court held that the decision to grant additional trials after April 2013 was no longer in force and the petitioner was not entitled to relief.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to further trials for the old LLM course after April 2013, based on the circulars and resolutions issued by the university.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the resolutions dated 1.6.2014 by the Academic Council and Executive Council superseded the earlier resolutions, and the petitioner's delay in taking action prevented any effective relief. The court concluded that the decision to grant additional trials after April 2013 was no longer in force and the petitioner was not entitled to relief.
Final Decision: The petition failed, and the court rejected the petitioner's claim, discharging the notice and vacating any adinterim relief.
1. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:
“12A. Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct examinations for old course LLM students by giving four trials as per their own resolution no.127 and University order dated 22/06/2011 and as per minutes of meeting dated 18/08/2012 of executive Council of Gujarat University.
B. Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to check the answer sheet of the students as per their merits only.”
2. The petitioner herein had secured admission in the Course of LLM (Criminal) in Academic Year 200506 (which was of two years duration).
2.1 The said course came to be discontinued in 2011-12.
2.2 The petitioner had, until then, not cleared the course.
2.3 Now in 2014 the petitioner has come out with present petition against the decision and action of the respondents of not conducting examinations for said old course of LLM after April 2013.
2.4 The respondents decided to not grant further trials/opportunities by conducting examinations after 2013 of the old course which has been discontinued since 2011.
2.5 After discontinuing the course under which the examinations were held on yearly basis and substituting the same by new course from Academic Year 2011-12, the respondents discontinued to conduct examinations for the old course after April 2013.
2.6 Aggrieved by the said decision and action, the petitioner has taken out present petition.
3. From the facts mentioned by the petitioner to support to and justify his request, it has emerged that:
3.1 The petitioner had secured admission and registration in course of LLM (Criminal) in the Academic year 2005-06.
3.2 As per the curriculum prescribed for the said course, at the relevant time, the examinations were conducted on yearly basis and the students prosecuting the said case were required to pass examinations of LLM Part I and LM Part II for which examinations were conducted on yearly basis.
3.3 Subsequently, from Academic Year 2011-12, the respondent university introduced new course and also introduced semester system as per which the students are required to pass semester end examinations during four semesters.
3.4 While introducing the new course and new system for examinations, i.e. semester system, the respondents had decided to allow additional trials until 2013 to the students (who had secured admission and registration in the old course) so that they can clear/pass LLM (old course).
3.5 The petitioner has claimed that certain students who had secured admission in the old course, had represented against the said decision of the respondent university and had requested the respondent university to grant more trials/opportunities to clear the examinations and the course.
3.6 The petitioner has claimed and alleged that the respondent university had accepted the said request/representation by the students and agreed to grant additional trials until April 2015. The petitioner has claimed that the respondent university had issued a circular dated 22.6.2011 to the said effect.
3.7 The petitioner has further alleged that subsequently, the respondent university stopped conducting examinations for LLM course after April 2013 which, according to the petitioner, is contrary to university’s decision and the said circular dated 22.6.2011 read with resolution dated 18.8.2012.
3.8 The petitioner has alleged that since the respondent university did not conduct examinations for old course after April 2013, inquiry was made and the petitioner was informed that the decision to grant more trials, i.e. until 2015 was cancelled and there would not be any further/more trials – examinations for old course after April 2013.
3.9 The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision and action of the respondent university. Hence this petition.
4. So as to support and justify the request, the petitioner has averred and stated, inter alia, that:
“2. This petition is preferred against the action and inaction of
