Utkarsh Sharma vs Uoi And Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 5228 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        W.P.(C) 7214/2010 & CM No.14288/2010 (for stay).

         UTKARSH SHARMA                                        ..... Petitioner
                    Through:              Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

                                       versus
         UOI AND ORS                                           ..... Respondents
                            Through:      Mr. Sachin Datta with Ms. Gayatri
                                          Verma, Advocates for R-1&2.
                                          Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for R-4.
                                          Dr. A.L. Sangal, Registrar of R-3.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                     No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. Dr. A.L. Sangal, Registrar, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Institute of

Technology, Jalandhar (Respondent no.3) appears in person. He states that

he has no Advocate and will argue in person. He has contended that the

rules of admission are framed by the Central Counselling Board

(Respondent no.2) constituted each year and as per which rules of admission

the students are required to produce the original certificates disclosing

eligibility for admission latest by 15th September; that the petitioner did not

produce any certificates; not even of having passed the class Xth

examination. It has been enquired from Dr. A.L. Sangal as to why the class

Xth certificate is required. He states that the same is required as a proof of

date of birth. He however admits that mere production of X th class certificate

without the XIIth class certificate would not have been sufficient. He further

contends that the petitioner had submitted an affidavit at the time of

provisional admission undertaking to produce the said certificate by 15 th

September, 2010 and was in breach of the said undertaking also.

2. The aforesaid arguments are the same as the arguments raised by the

counsel for the respondents no.1&2 on the last date of hearing and dealt with

in the order dated 10th November, 2010. This Court in Deepika Chaudhary

Vs. University of Delhi 64(1996) DLT 503 held that a student exercises no

control over the declaration of result and when there is no fault attributable

to the student, the provision has to be benevolently interpreted and

reasonably administered and having regard to the welfare of the student. It

was further held that the University cannot be permitted to follow a rigid

approach by depriving the petitioner of her seat for the course to which the

student has been admitted on merit. To the same effect is the judgment of

the Apex Court in Shalini Vs. Kurukshetra University (2002) 2 SCC 270

also holding that a student cannot be faulted for the delay in declaration of

result.

3. For the reasons stated in the order dated 10th November, 2010, the

petition is allowed. The order dated 17th September, 2010 of the respondent

no.3 of cancellation of provisional admission of the petitioner is quashed.

The petitioner to furnish the original Xth & XIIth class certificates to Dr. A.L.

Sangal on 26th November, 2010 at 1100 hours, as agreed.

4. Dr. A.L. Sangal at this stage points out that the practical examinations

of the First semester are over and the theory examinations are scheduled

from 22nd to 29th November, 2010. He further states that the petitioner has

attended only eight classes in a subject in the First semester and is far below

the eligibility of 75% attendance and is not entitled to appear even in the

theory papers on this account.

5. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not

allowed to attend the classes though willing to.

6. Since the petitioner was not allowed to attend classes owing to the

order dated 17th September, 2010 and which order has now been quashed, it

is felt that the deficit in attendance ought not to come in the way of the

petitioner in taking the examinations of the theory papers scheduled from

22nd to 29th November, 2010. This Court in Avanija Sundaramurti Vs.

University of Delhi 139(2007) DLT 220 held that where shortage of

attendance is for the reason of delay attributable to the University in grant of

admission, the student cannot be penalized.

7. Dr. A.L Sangal however insists that the course being a professional

one, the petitioner without attending the classes, would not acquire

proficiency. He further states that even if the petitioner is permitted to take

the theory examinations, he has already missed the practical examinations

and if the Court directs the respondent no.3 to hold fresh practical

examinations for the petitioner it would put the respondent no.3 Institute to a

lot of difficulty. He states that rather than making the petitioner take the

examination without attending the classes, it would be more appropriate if

the petitioner joins with effect from Second semester commencing in

January, 2011. On enquiry as to how the same is possible, he states that the

First year of the course comprises of twelve papers; that the said twelve

papers are divided into two groups of six papers each and the first year

students are also divided into two groups, with one group studying one

group of six papers and the other group studying the other group of six

papers in the First semester and vice-a-versa in the Second semester. He

states that in this way the petitioner, though will suffer delay of six months

in completing the course in comparison to the others admitted along with

him but would at least have an opportunity to attend the classes and which is

essential.

8. The aforesaid suggestion of Dr. A.L Sangal is found by this Court to

be preferable and beneficial. The father of the petitioner present in person

had also expressed reservations about the petitioner being made to undergo

the examinations immediately and had contended that the petitioner would

need time to prepare for the same. He is also agreeable to the said

suggestion.

9. It is accordingly directed that the petitioner shall join the course with

effect from the commencement of the Second semester in January, 2011

and the maximum period for completing the course in his case would also be

counted therefrom. Dr. A.L. Sangal has assured that the petitioner would

have no impediments in completing the course in the manner as suggested

by him save for the delay of six months.

10. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.

Dasti under signatures of court master.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 18th November, 2010 pp