IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Kenisha Singh Jeet – Appellant
Versus
State Of U P And 5 Others – Respondents
Writ C No. - 17418 of 2021
Decided on : 26-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Examination - Conduct of Fresh Examination - Whether petitioner has submitted hard copy of examination form along with other details before respondent-college within time specified or not - Can this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, direct respondent-University to conduct fresh or special examination of M.A. Final year of petitioner only.
Finding of the Court:
In reply learned counsel for petitioner has failed to produce or show same - No such documentary proof has been produced before this Court on behalf of petitioner from which it is established that petitioner has submitted hard copy of admission form along with other details to respondent-college within time - No provision known to law, has been placed before this Court on basis of which this Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, can direct respondent-University to conduct fresh or special examination of M.A. Final Year of petitioner only, when as matter of fact that same is already over - Therefore, plea of petitioner that she drew an impression that obligation on her part, which was to be exercised, had been diligently discharged and now onus shifted to college i.e. respondent-college to forward relevant form and other details to respondent-University, has no force, hence same is liable to be rejected - On cumulative strength of aforesaid, learned counsel for respondent-college submits that the present writ petition does not warrant any interference as she is not entitled to any relief and same is liable to be dismissed.
Result : Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava-III, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Asheem Mukherjee, learned StandingCounsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-University and Mr. V.P. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-institution.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to rectify their mistake by verifying the examination form of the petitioner, upload the admit card of the petitioner on website and permit him to appear in the final (revised)Examination Schedule (P.G.) M.A. (Final Year) Main Exam-2021, as per the updated schedule dated 7th July, 2021. He further prays for a direction upon the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to conduct fresh examination of the petitioner in respect of final (revised) Examination Schedule (P.G.) M.A. (Final Year) Main Exam-2021, as per the updated schedule dated 7th July, 2021.
3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and they agree that this petition may be finally decided without calling for any further affidavit.
4. In the present petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a student of 2nd year of M.A. English of respondent-institution, namely, Hindu College, Moradabad, U.P. which is affiliated to respondent-University, namely,Mahatama Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly. The petitioner got enrolled in the M.A. course in the respondent-college in the year 2019 and was duly promoted in the main examination, which was held in the year 2020 of M.A. First Year. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the admission form for the academic session 2020-2021, wherein the petitioner was allotted form no. 2100206287 and she also submitted the examination fee of Rs. 1,000/-as well as the other charges online on 8th March, 2021.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that it is the procedure adopted by the respondent-University that the entire fees and the relevant forms are to be deposited online through the portal of the respondent-University, thereafter the papers of the candidates concerned are to be forwarded by the respondent-college to the University along with the hard copies of admission forms and respective details. After the deposit of the fees, the payment status of the online fees of the petitioner was shown to be successful, hence, the petitioner drew an impression that the obligation on the part of the petitioner, which was to be exercised, had been diligently discharged and the onus now has been shifted on the college concerned i.e. respondent no.6 to forward the relevant form as well as other details to the respondent-University. After the examination schedules were notified for the academic session 2020-2021 on 8th July, 2021, the petitioner visited the portal of the respondent-University to find out her admit card but she was surprised to see that the verification status of the petitioner was shown as Unverified i.e. "May not be received at college (submit a copy of the examination form in your college). Since the first paper of the M.A.(2)-English-I-Nineteenth Century English Poetry (11017) was scheduled for 24th July, 2021, the petitioner tried to download her admit card on 20th July, 2021 but on the portal of the respondent-University,the status of the petitioner was shown as unverified due to which the admit card of the petitioner could not be downloaded on 20th July, 2021. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner approached the college concerned on the very same day i.e. 20th July, 2021 and the petitioner narrated the entire facts, as stated above, to the administration of the respondent-college and gave the details upon which the administration of the respondent-college assured her that they will get it rectified. Since the administration of the respondent-College fairly accepted their fault and admitted that they had not uploaded the petitioner's form properly into the verified system of the r
Point of law: Petitioner submits her examination form along with examination fee and other details as required, on the portal of the respondent-University.
The university must ensure proper communication regarding examination schedules to avoid prejudice against students.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Regulation 17(a)-2(iii) and the court's reliance on precedents to allow the issuance of the consolidated marksheet of M.Sc. (Com....
Exceptional circumstances can warrant deviation from standard procedures to uphold the rights of the petitioner.
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 emphasized the need for administrative flexibility in educational admissions, stating a minor error should not lead to denial of opportunities. Timely rectification of the error weighed hea....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's eligibility to appear in the 6th Semester Examination was determined based on the attendance requirement under Ordinance VII.
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.