Rubab Ajmali vs University Of Delhi & Anr
2009 Latest Caselaw 3311 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      Writ Petition (Civil) No.8176/2009

%                        Date of Decision: 21.08.2009

Rubab Ajmali                                                .... Petitioner
                        Through Mr.Rajiv Aneja, Advocate.

                                  Versus

University of Delhi & Anr                               .... Respondents
                      Through     Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate for the
                                  respondent No.1.
                                  Mr.Sushil Tiwari, Advocate for the
                                  respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be               YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in              NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

Rule.

The learned counsel for the respondent dispense with the notice.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final

disposal.

The result of the petitioner has been produced by the counsel for

the University, Mr.Amit Bansal in a sealed cover. The result of the

petitioner has been perused.

The petitioner has filed the abovenoted petition seeking direction

to the respondents to issue roll number to the petitioner for appearing

in the second year annual examination of B.A (Hons) Political Science

and to allow her to participate in the course papers of second year

annual examination of B.A (Hons) and to declare the result of the

petitioner for the said examination.

Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court dated 15th

April, 2009 petitioner was permitted to sit in the second year

examination of B.A (Hons) starting from 18th April, 2009 with the

condition that the result of the petitioner be not declared without

permission of this Court and the respondents were directed to issue

admit card/roll number to enable the petitioner to appear in the

examination. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the second year

examination of B.A (Hons) Political Science taking into consideration

that her attendance was 90%.

The petitioner had not been allowed to appear in the examination

on the ground that as per regulations framed by academic council, the

last date for submission of examination form and examination fees for

the course of B.A (Hons) Part II was 15th December, 2008 and not later

than 15 days before the commencement of the examination which in

the case of the petitioner was 23rd March, 2009.

The petitioner has contended that though she had deposited the

fees on 23rd March, 2009, however, the receipt is alleged to had been

given by the college to the petitioner on 24th March, 2009. The

petitioner has further pleaded that on account of financial problems the

fees could not be deposited in time and could be tendered only on 23rd

March, 2009 along with a fine of Rs.1,310/-.

The result of the petitioner is produced by the respondent

University in a sealed cover which has been perused. The fees which

was deposited by the petitioner on 23rd March, 2009 and which was

deposited by the respondents on 24th March, 2009, had been remitted

by the College to the University on 25th March, 2009.

Whether the petitioner had deposited the fees on 23rd March,

2009 or whether it was deposited on 24th March, 2009 may not be very

material in view of the fact that the fees was remitted to the University

and petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination. The petitioner

had paid the fees along with substantial amount of fine. Since the

petitioner knew the last date of payment of fees and the fees was not

paid by her earlier on account of financial difficulties faced by her, it

will be difficult to infer that she would not tender the fees on 23rd

March, 2009. In these facts and circumstances, if the respondents are

directed to declare the result of the petitioner, no such prejudice shall

be caused to the respondents which will harm their interest. The

direction to declare the result shall, however, be without making it a

precedent. Though there is no provision according to the respondents

for condonation of delay in submitting fees, however, in the present

case it will be in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to

declare the result of the petitioner. No purpose will be served, if the

respondents are not permitted to declare the result of the petitioner, in

the facts and circumstance.

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, without this

being a precedent, it will be just and appropriate and in the interest of

justice to direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner.

Consequently, the writ petition in the facts and circumstances is

allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the

petitioner forthwith with all the consequential benefits. This

adjudication of the pleas and contentions of the parties be not treated

as a precedent. Parties are left to bear their own cost. All the pending

applications are also disposed of.

August 21, 2009                                      ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'