Court No. - 35

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6498 of 2022

Petitioner :- Dhananjay Vishwakarma

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Vinod Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent University.

The controversy involved in the present case centers around the delayed

participation of the petitioner in the examination of three years LL.B.

course of 5^th and 6^th semester in which petitioner participated in the year

2018 only. It is though admitted by the University that petitioner was

permitted to participate in the examination on call of college but later on

when it came to know from the records that she had violated the terms and

conditions of the admission and University Rules which provided that

maximum period for student to clear the course would be six years, it

accordingly detained the result of sixth semester of three years LLB course

and when petitioner made representation, representation has come to be

rejected on the same ground .

The plea taken in the instructions placed before the Court by the

University is that University cannot be held liable or responsible in any

manner for the fault committed by the college , however, it is an admitted

fact that University is Examination Conducting Body and also registering

the students on its portal for the course because degree is awarded by the

University.

Under the circumstances, therefore, it would be a primary duty of the

University to get necessary information about students that are registered

by the College on the portal of the University because issuing them admit

card to participate in the examination conducted by the University, the

University. In other words needs to verify whether students deserves to be

issued with admit card or not.

The present case something sounds like as if petitioner dropped out for

one to two years in three years LL.B. course but still he was permitted to

appear as a regular student. Whether a student is to be directed to appear

as a regular student or an ex student, is purely a responsibility of the

University and in that regard consultation must be held by the

Examination Controller with the college concerned as ultimately

verification of record has to be done by the University in consultation with

the college and if for the laxity committed on the part of officials of

college has resulted in any wrong, it is always a right of the University to

get its rules in place and action be taken against the college as to why it

may not be penalized for the same. Career of a student who has been

permitted to participate in the examination by the University, cannot be

jeopardised for the fault of the officials of the University or any fault at the

end of the college which has found approval in an action of the University

in permitting such students to appear in examination.

It is a well settled principle of law that question of fraud is a question fact.

Now whether a person or a student in this case has committed fraud in the

matter or not has to be seen from the angle whether University had no

source to verify the facts and whether petitioner misrepresented the

University in getting himself placed at an advantageous position. The

University was in possession of the records of the college and also of the

student who was duly registered on its official website framed for the said

purpose and, therefore, University cannot take a turn around to suggest

that since student has taken more than six years to clear the examination

conducted by the University, he will not be issued with degree and his

results are liable to be detained.

It is case where the University was in possession of the records and it

could have verified the same but it failed to do so and, therefore petitioner

cannot be penalized for the same .