Shatrudhan Kumar vs Ggsip University And Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 929 Del

$~53.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 1163/2013 & CM 2202/2013

%                                      Judgment dated 25.02.2013

       SHATRUDHAN KUMAR                                       ..... Petitioner
                   Through :           Mr.Tungesh, Mr.Umesh K. Burnwal and
                                       Mr.Akhand Pratap Singh, Advs.

                          versus

       GGSIP UNIVERSITY AND ANR                      ..... Respondents

Through : Mr.Mukul Talwar and Mr.S.Mohapatra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to re- evaluate his answer sheet after eliminating the questions falling out of the syllabus in the supplementary examination of B-Tech Course ECE Branch, fourth semester, for the subject, Communication System and Circuit-I, conducted by the respondents on 3.11.2012.

2. As per the petition, in the year 2008 the petitioner appeared in the entrance examination i.e. IPCET, conducted by the respondent no.1/University, wherein he secured the rank of 5183. The petitioner was offered ECE Branch in the B.Tech course in the respondent no.2 college. Since the petitioner did not secure the mandatory grades i.e. 90% in the third semester and fourth semester (put together), the petitioner chose to appear in the six papers in the supplementary examination of B.Tech

(ECE), which was conducted by respondent no.1 from 25.8.2012 to 8.11.2012. The result of the said examination was declared on 21.11.2012. The petitioner could not clear two papers i.e. 'Electromagnetic Fields and Transmission Lines' and 'Communication System and Circuit-I' in the supplementary examination held in October, 2012, due to which he was not promoted to and permitted to appear in the seventh semester examination held in December, 2012.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that in the question paper of 'Communication System and Circuit-I', in the supplementary examination held on 03.11.2012, 40% of the questions were out of the syllabus prescribed. Thereafter the petitioner applied for revaluation wherein his marks was increased by 2 marks i.e. from 24 out of 75 marks to 26 out of 75 marks. Counsel further submits that since the petitioner could not clear the examination, he made a representation dated 22.11.2012 to the Controller of Examination of respondent no.1/University stating therein that the supplementary examination of Communication System and Circuit-I (ETEC-208) of B.Tech, 4th semester was not according to the prescribed syllabus of the University and most of the questions were from Communication System and Circuit-II, which is in the fifth semester. Counsel next contends that the Head of the Department of respondent no.2/College also wrote a letter dated 27.11.2012 to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent no.1/University stating therein that the questions asked in the supplementary examination of Communication System and Circuit-I, in which the petitioner appeared, were out of the syllabus.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite a representation dated 22.11.2012 having been made by the petitioner to the Controller of Examination of respondent no.1/University, bringing to their notice that

40% of the questions were out of the syllabus followed by a reminder representation dated 24.12.2012, no satisfactory response has been received, which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

5. Mr.Mukul Talwar, learned counsel for respondent no.1/University, has refuted each and every averment made by the petitioner in the present writ petition and has opposed the present writ petition on various grounds including on the ground of delay and laches. Mr.Talwar submits that the supplementary examination of B.Tech (ECE) was conducted by respondent no.1 from 25.8.2012 to 8.11.2012, the petitioner appeared in six papers of the supplementary examination, the result of which was declared on 21.11.2012. Counsel further submits that the petitioner submitted his representation dated 22.11.2012 which was after the declaration of the result on 21.11.2012, whereas according to the University Ordinance 11 Clause 12(B) a representation is to be made within seven days of examination and in any case prior to the declaration of the results. Counsel for the respondent next contends that except for the petitioner no other student has complained that the questions, which were asked in the supplementary examination, were out of the syllabus. Counsel also submits that the letter written by the Head of the Department of respondent no.2/College to the Vice-Chancellor of respondent no.1/University on 27.11.2012 was not a proper or a formal communication by respondent no.2 and a representation of this nature can only be considered by the Vice-Chancellor of the University if it is either forwarded or written by the Director of respondent no.2/College.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the documents placed on record. The supplementary examinations for the B.Tech (ECE) course were conducted from 25.8.2012 to 8.11.2012, the result of which was declared on

21.11.2012. In case the petitioner was really concerned that 40% of the questions were out of the syllabus the petitioner should have approached the College or the University at the first opportunity available. Filing of the representation by the petitioner after the declaration of the result shows that the petitioner was aggrieved only after the result was declared in which the petitioner was found unsuccessful and was not promoted to the seventh semester.

7. Reading of the University Ordinance 11 Clause 12(B) makes it abundantly clear that in case any student has any grievance with regard to the paper being beyond the syllabus the application is to be made within seven days of examination. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner did not make a representation to the Vice Chancellor, bringing to his notice that the questions were out of syllabus at the first opportunity available.

8. Having regard to the fact that the supplementary examinations for the B.Tech (ECE) course were conducted from 25.8.2012 to 8.11.2012; the result of which was declared on 21.11.2012; the petitioner made a representation after the declaration of the result; except for the petitioner no other student complained that the questions were out of the syllabus; the letter dated 27.11.2012, sought to be relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, was not written by the Head of the Institution and taking into consideration that the seventh semester has already started, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the present writ petition and application stand dismissed.

G.S.SISTANI, J FEBRUARY 25, 2013 msr