Sh.Sunil Kumar Jeph vs The Vice Chancellor, University ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3717 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     Writ Petition (Civil) No.11549/2009

%                          Date of Decision: 11.09.2009

Sh.Sunil Kumar Jeph                                          .... Petitioner
                           Through Mr.Ajeet K.s. Bhadauria, Advocate

                                    Versus

The Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi and others     .... Respondent
                     Through Mr.Anurag        Mathur,   Advocate  for
                                respondents No.1 and 2.
                                Ms.Zubeda      Begum,   Advocate  for
                                respondent No.4.

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. (ORAL)

*

The petitioner seeks an order or direction to the respondent No.1

and 2 and respondents No.3 to 4 to mention the marks in the mark

sheet obtained in the practicum by the petitioner and to allow the

petitioner to appear in the upcoming re-examination which is going to

be held and conducted in the second week of September 2009 for the

paper Education Psychology in which the petitioner could not be able to

secure minimum passing marks. The petitioner has also sought

appropriate direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 to issue fresh mark

sheet showing correct marks obtained by the petitioner to secure his

academic career.

Learned counsel for the respondent/University has produced a

copy of the letter dated 2nd September, 2009 issued to the petitioner

regarding his request to mention the marks of the practicum and for

issuing of fresh mark sheet.

The letter indicates that on examining the complaint of the

petitioner, the Teacher-in-Charge had informed that the petitioner had

discontinued coming to the College without any permission or

information to the College office or Teachers concerned with effect from

18th November, 2008. The petitioner did not attend the College so he

did not deliver the lessons in second rotation and did not complete the

required lessons plan. It is also intimated by the Teacher-in-Charge

that he discussed only three lessons with the subject Teacher whereas

minimum required lessons for discussions were four and, therefore, he

could not be assessed on the basis of his assessment and he has been

awarded no marks in the final assessment.

Perusal of the petition rather reveals that the petitioner has not

disclosed that he had been absent from 18th November, 2008 and he did

not submit the minimum required four lessons. Rather the allegation of

negligence on the part of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has been made.

Apparently, in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has

concealed the material facts. In the circumstances, there are no

grounds to interfere. The petitioner has failed in two subjects and

therefore he cannot be placed in compartment nor he is entitled for

issuance of any revised mark sheet.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

September 11, 2009                                     ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'