Delhi High Court
Deepa Mann vs Dilip Kr. Bandyopadhyay & Others on 17 April, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
39.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8196/2009
Date of decision: 17th April, 2009
DEEPA MANN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S. Shahi, Advocate.
versus
DILIP KR. BANDYOPADHYAY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. G.D. Goel & Mr. Praveen Kumar,
Advocates for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with
Mr. Nitin Malik, Joint Registrar & Mr. A.D. Lamba,
Assistant Registrar, GGSIPU.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
%
1. The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Occupation Therapy in
Delhi Institute of Rural Development. The petitioner has cleared her first
year, after passing in one subject in the supplementary examination held
in October, 2007.
2. The petitioner had appeared in examination of the second year but
failed in one subject. The petitioner appeared in the supplementary
examination in November, 2008 but did not again clear the said subject.
W.P.(C) No. 8196-2009 Page 1
The petitioner seeks relaxation of the eligibility requirement for being
promoted to the third year. In the petition, it is alleged that nine students
who had failed in one subject were promoted, subject to their clearing the
said paper along with the papers for the next year.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent University, who has appeared
on advance notice, points out that the earlier ordinance did not provide for
detaining a student in case he fails in any subject. In these circumstances,
till academic year 2007-08, students who had failed in one subject were
given provisional promotion and allowed to attend classes and lectures for
the next academic year provided they cleared the said paper in the next
academic year. However, in January, 2007 a new ordinance was notified
and Clause 15(g) of the said Ordinacne is as under:-
"g. Supplementary examinations for the students
will be held at the earliest like (within 6 weeks of
declaration of results). This will facilitate the
students to pursue his/her studies of the
subsequent annual term. Supplementary tests
can be held in any of the activated center of the
university combined for all the institutions. The
student failing in the supplementary tests will be
declared failed and he/she will have to repeat the
entire academic term."
4. The said Clause stipulates that a student who appears in a
supplementary examination but fails to clear the same is required to
repeat the entire academic year, and cannot be granted provisional
promotion. Learned counsel for the respondent further points out that the
W.P.(C) No. 8196-2009 Page 2
said Ordinance was notified and became applicable with effect from
January, 2007. However, as the Ordinance was made applicable in the
middle of the academic year and students were not aware and given
sufficient notice, therefore, in the first year one time relaxation was given.
It is further stated that no relaxation is envisaged and has been given to
any student in the current academic year. Learned counsel for the
respondent has also pointed out that the petitioner has enrolled herself for
the second academic year and has been attending classes and has
appeared in the internal examination, which commenced from 13th April,
2009. Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn my attention to
a similar averment made in the writ petition itself.
5. In view of the above factual position, I do not think petitioner can
be promoted to third academic year, contrary to Clause 15(g) of the
Ordinance. The academic standards fixed by the respondent University
have to be adhered to and followed. This Court cannot modify and change
the said academic standard and grant relaxation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has
deposited a fee of Rs.46,000/- for the third academic year in view of the
fact that she was appearing in the supplementary examination. This is
admitted. The petitioner now has to repeat the second academic year.
The fee of Rs.46,000/- paid by the petitioner should be treated as paid by
the petitioner for the second academic year and shall be given benefit of
W.P.(C) No. 8196-2009 Page 3
the same.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
APRIL 17, 2009
VKR
W.P.(C) No. 8196-2009 Page 4
