Delhi High Court
Arpita Rathore vs University Of Delhi And Anr on 14 March, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.883/2011 and C.M. Nos.1855/2011 & 1026/2012
Decided on: 14th March, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
ARPITA RATHORE ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan Arya, Adv. with
petitioner in person.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Beenashaw Soni, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter
alia for quashing the action of the respondents in refusing to grant her re-
admission in the B.A.(Programme) course Part-II Session 2010-11 and to
give her re-admission in the said course in Session 2010-11. The petitioner
had also sought permission to take the B.A. (Programme) Part-II Annual
Examinations in April/May, 2011.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner took admission
as a regular student in respondent No.2/College, affiliated to respondent
No.1/University of Delhi, in B.A. (Programme) Part-I course in the academic
year 2008-09. In April 2009, she sat for the Part-I annual examinations and
was declared as having passed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner took
admission in the B.A. (Programme) Part-II course as a regular student in the
academic year 2009-10.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she had been regularly
attending the classes for the said session and her attendance for the said
academic year was 59%. As per the petitioner, on 16.11.2009, she had
filled up her examination form for taking the B.A. (Programme) Part-II
Annual Examinations that were to be held in April/May 2010. However,
when she went to sit for her first examination in April 2010, she was not
permitted to take the same and it was only then that she discovered that her
application form for taking the annual examinations had not been received
by the respondents. The petitioner claimed that she had approached
respondent No.2/College on 11.4.2010 with a request to accept her
application for taking the annual examinations alongwith the late fee, but
her request was not acceded to and as a result, she could not take her B.A.
(Programme) Part-II annual examinations for the academic year 2009-10.
4. It is averred in the petition that in August, 2010, the petitioner
started visiting the office of respondent No.2/College seeking re-admission in
B.A. (Programme) Part-II course for the session 2010-11. She also
submitted an application to respondent No.2/College with the same request,
but did not receive any response. Finally, a legal notice dated 26.10.2010
was addressed on behalf of the petitioner to respondent No.2/College for the
grant of permission to submit her application for B.A. (Programme) Part-II
Annual Examinations 2010-11 that were to be conducted in April/May 2011.
The petitioner claims that as she did not receive any reply to the aforesaid
representation, the present writ petition came to be filed in February 2011.
5. Notice was issued on the present petition on 10.2.2011. Vide
order dated 11.3.2011, the petitioner was directed to appear before the
Dean (Colleges) of respondent No.1/University, who was asked to
sympathetically consider as to whether an academic year of the petitioner
could be saved. On 7.4.2011, counsel for respondent No.1/University
informed the Court that since the petitioner had failed to obtain re-admission
in the second year in B.A. (Programme) Part-II course in respondent
No.2/College, she could not be permitted to take the examination as a
student of respondent No.2/College and further, that she could not be
permitted to appear in the examination as an ex-student also because under
Ordinance VIII-4(b) of respondent No.1/University, only those who, after
applying for admission to examination and are otherwise eligible to appear in
the examination; fail for good reason to appear in the examination or having
so appeared, are declared unsuccessful at the examination, are entitled to so
appear as an ex-student. Counsel for respondent No.1/University contended
that the petitioner had not even applied in the previous year for taking the
examination and having not given any good reason for failing to appear in
the examination, she was not entitled, in the next year, to take the
examination as an ex-student also.
6. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, the
petitioner was directed to amend the writ petition and it was further directed
that upon her approaching the respondents within one week from the date of
passing the aforesaid order, the respondents would permit the petitioner to
fill up the examination form and complete other formalities for appearing in
the B.A. (Programme) Part-II end-term examinations that were to be held in
April/May 2011 as an ex-student. It is stated that pursuant to the
aforesaid order, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the B.A.
(Programme) Part-II end-term examinations that were held in April/May
2011.
7. Vide order dated 21.11.2011, the respondents were directed to
produce the result of the petitioner in a sealed cover. On the next date of
hearing, the result of the petitioner for the aforesaid examination was
produced by respondent No.1/University and duly opened. As per the said
result, the petitioner has passed the B.A. (Programme) Part-II examinations
for the session 2010-11. The said result is taken on record.
8. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2/College, it is
stated that the petitioner had attended her classes for the academic year
2009-10 and had 59% attendance. However, she approached respondent
No.2/College only when she did not receive her admit card to appear in the
examinations that were to be conducted in March/April, 2010. Upon raising
a hue and cry in the college, the petitioner was asked to produce her
examination fee deposit receipt so as to ascertain the status of her
examination form. However, she could not produce the same and on further
inquiry, it transpired that the petitioner had neither filled up her examination
form, nor had she deposited her examination fee. As a result of the same,
her examination form could not have been forwarded by respondent
No.2/College to respondent No.1/University and consequently, there was no
question of respondent No.1/University issuing an admit card to her for
appearing in the said annual examinations.
9. It is further pointed out by learned counsel for respondent
No.2/College that the petitioner had taken a stand in the writ petition that
she had filled up the examination form and had handed over the same to her
class mate for submitting it to respondent No.2/College. But admittedly, the
same was not submitted to respondent No.2/College. It is stated that even
in the next academic session, i.e., 2010-11, the petitioner did not approach
the college authorities for her re-admission or for any further enquiry and
instead, right from March 2010 till mid September 2010, the petitioner sat
pretty without even making any attempt to enquire as to what had to be
done as she had missed her second year examinations. It was further
stated that the last date for filling up the examination form was 31.12.2010
and as the petitioner had not filled up the examination form, the admit card
could not be issued to her and she could not take the examinations
scheduled for April 2011.
10. As regards the end-term examinations which the petitioner was
required to take in April/May 2011, the said aspect was taken care of vide
order dated 7.4.2011, whereunder the petitioner was permitted to appear
for the end-term examinations as an ex-student and her result as produced
later on in Court, reveals that she has passed the same.
11. On the last date of hearing, counsel for respondent No.2/College
had submitted that the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of having
66% attendance and therefore, as per the rules, the respondents could not
have permitted her to sit for the end-term examinations that were held in
April/May, 2011 but for the orders passed on 7.4.2011. The aforesaid
submission was refuted by learned counsel for the petitioner who had stated
that the petitioner had been participating in extra-curricular activities, which
included intra-college debates, for which she was entitled to some relaxation
of attendance.
12. Today, counsel for the petitioner hands over a letter dated
2.3.2012 addressed by the Principal of respondent No.2/College to the
petitioner, which states that the petitioner was the General Secretary of the
College Debating Society during the session 2009-10 and she had
participated in various debating society programmes to represent the
College, for which she had been issued certificates, copies of which are
enclosed with the said letter. The said letter is taken on record, along with
the annexures enclosed therewith. It is submitted by the learned counsel
that the petitioner is entitled to relaxation of attendance but the other side
disputes the extent to which relaxation can be granted to her.
13. Undoubtedly, the situation in which the petitioner finds herself is
of her own making. Had she been diligent enough to have personally
deposited the examination fee for the examination that was to be conducted
in March/April 2010, instead of relying on a classmate to do so, she would
not have found herself in this predicament. However, the petitioner has
suffered immensely for this folly and the same has costed her two valuable
academic years in the process. The result is that instead of having
completed the B.A. (Programme) course in the academic year 2010-11, till
date, the petitioner has only been able to sit for the B.A. (Programme) Part
II examination and that too, under the orders of the Court. If the result of
the petitioner for the examinations held in April/May, 2011 relating to the
B.A.(Programme) Part-II Course is not permitted to be declared, she shall
stand to lose not one, but two running academic years.
14. The petitioner has paid dearly for her irresponsible conduct and
looking at the entire facts and circumstances where her entire academic
career has been jeopardized and brought to a grinding halt, this Court is of
the opinion that her agony ought not to be prolonged any further. Therefore,
having regard to the fact that much water has flown during the pendency of
the present writ petition and taking into consideration the order dated
7.4.2011, whereunder the petitioner was permitted to appear in the B.A.
(Programme) Part-II end-term examinations held in April/May 2011 as an
ex-student, and in view of the fact that the results of the petitioner reveals
that she has passed the said examination, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is granted a one-time
relaxation with regard to her attendance and respondent No.2/College is
directed to forward the internal assessment marks secured by the petitioner
in the academic session 2009-10 to respondent No.1/University within one
week. Thereafter, respondent No.1/University shall add the internal
assessment marks to the marks scored by the petitioner in the end-term
examinations held in April/May, 2011 and then declare her results for the
B.A. (Programme) Part II examination within a period of two weeks
therefrom. The result of the petitioner shall be communicated by
respondent No.1/University to respondent No.2/College, who shall in turn
communicate the same forthwith to the petitioner.
15. While disposing of the present writ petition, it is made clear that
the aforesaid order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case and this Court has not examined the legal issue with regard to
the applicability of Ordinance VIII-4 of respondent No.1/University to the
facts of the present case. Therefore, this decision shall not be treated as a
precedent in any other case.
16. The petition is disposed of along with the pending applications,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsels for the
parties.
(HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH 14, 2012 JUDGE
sk
