Delhi High Court
Avadhesh Kumar vs University Of Delhi & Anr. on 28 March, 2016
Author: Manmohan
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2691/2016 & C.M.No.11390/2016
AVADHESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Umesh Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents
Through Mr.Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Advocate.
% Date of Decision : 28th March, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to
respondents to allow the petitioner to complete his LL.B. Course by
appearing in the back papers even beyond the span period.
2. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner was
required to complete his LL.B. Course by 2014 i.e. within the
prescribed span period. Learned counsel for petitioner states that
petitioner could not complete the course within the stipulated period as
he is a Central Government employee who had been transferred from
one place to another. Thus according to him, non-completion of course
was due to circumstances beyond petitioner's control.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner states that respondents have been
granting chances to students to complete the course beyond their
stipulated span period.
4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner
relies upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
on 04th August, 2015 in Major Amandeep Singh Vs. University of
Delhi & Anr. in W.P.(C)No. 9320/2014.
5. This Court is of the opinion that there is a distinction between a
student whose study has been interrupted due to joining the Army or a
student who wants to study later in life in comparison to those students
who cannot clear their exams despite repeatedly appearing in them.
Since the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Major Amandeep Singh
(supra) deals with the former set of cases, it offers no assistance to the
petitioners.
6. In response to a pointed query by this Court, the learned counsel
for the petitioner admits that the petitioner has availed of all the
attempts and appeared in all the examinations, i.e., both during the
regular course as well as the span period. Consequently, the plea of
petitioner that non completion of course was due to circumstances
beyond his control, is factually incorrect. It is pertinent to mention that
though the law course is normally to be completed within a period of
three years, the petitioner has availed of the span period, i.e., six years.
7. This Court is also of the view that the petitioner's reliance on
alleged similar cases is misplaced. The Supreme Court in Union of
India & Ors. Vs. M.K.Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 has held that Article 14
is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner, and
that if any illegality or irregularity is committed in favour of any
individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction
of courts for perpetuating the same irregularity or illegality in their
favour also on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits
which have been illegally extended to others.
8. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is
not entitled to any relief. This Court while passing the order has kept in
mind the fact that the petitioner is a student of a professional course and
after getting a degree is bound to advise the litigants and the public at
large on legal issues.
9. This Court is also of the view that every country has to try to
achieve excellence and the highest academic standards. A society that
tolerates too much of incompetency can never prosper. Consequently,
this Court is of the opinion that education standards cannot be allowed
to fall to an absolutely 'low level'.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition and the application are
dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
MARCH 28, 2016
KA
