Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
A.K.MOHAPATRA
Byomakesh Nayak – Appellant
Versus
Utkal University represented by its Vice Chancellor, Bhubaneswar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. denial of permission based on attendance (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. judicial permission for examination attendance (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. claim of illegality and arbitrary decision (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. delay in academic sessions impacting student rights (Para 10 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. failure of university to adhere to judicial orders (Para 24 , 27 , 36) |
| 6. rejection of representation due to procedural unreasonableness (Para 31 , 35 , 37) |
| 7. final ruling allows examination participation (Para 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Mohapatra, J.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Opposite Party No.1-University in denying permission to the Petitioner to appear in the 4th Semester of LL.M Examination conducted by Opposite Party No.1-University, while allowing him to appear in the 3rd Semester Examination on the ground that the Petitioner does not have adequate attendance to appear in such examination, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Further, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order vide Memo dated 13.07.2023 under Annexure-4 with a further direction to the University to permit him to appear in the 4th and final Semester of LLM Examination to be conducted
The court determined that the university's denial of examination permission based on attendance was arbitrary, emphasizing the need for adherence to judicial directives and consideration of individua....
The judgment establishes the principle that students must meet minimum attendance requirements and may only be exempted from them under specific conditions as provided by the relevant legal provision....
The adherence to minimum attendance requirements is essential in university regulations, and non-compliance undermines eligibility to sit for examinations.
The court held that the decision of the respondent authorities to disqualify the petitioner under Regulation 5(a) without finding mala-fide possession of material was non-speaking and cryptic, and fa....
Educational institutions cannot withhold results based on procedural errors after allowing students to take examinations, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory obligations.
The court upheld the cancellation of LLB admission due to non-compliance with eligibility criteria, holding the Law College accountable for the illegal admission and awarding compensation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
