Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Aadil Farooq Bhat vs Vice Chancellor on 13 February, 2025
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar, Puneet Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA No. 19/2024 in
WP (C) No. 1783/2022
CM No. 401/2024
Reserved On: 4th of February, 2025
Pronounced On: 13th of February, 2025
Aadil Farooq Bhat
... Appellant(s)
Through: -
Mr Mukhtar Ahmad Makroo, Advocate.
V/s
Vice Chancellor, Central University of Kashmir and Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr Arshid Ahmad Wani, Advocate.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge
Hon'ble Mr Justice Puneet Gupta, Judge
(JUDGMENT)
Sanjeev Kumar-J:
01. This intra Court appeal is directed against the Order and
Judgment dated 4th of November, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge
of this Court ["the Writ Court"] in WP (C) No. 1783/2022 titled 'Aadil
Farooq Bhat v. Vice Chancellor, Central University of Kashmir,
Ganderbal & Ors.', whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant for
seeking a direction to the Respondents to conduct his examination of End
Semester of Post-Graduation Course in Convergent Journalism has been
dismissed.
02. The impugned Judgment is assailed by the Appellant on
multiple grounds, however, before adverting to the grounds of challenge
raised by Mr Mukhtar Ahmad Makroo, the learned Counsel appearing for
the Appellant, it would be appropriate to take note of few material facts.
LPA No. 19/2024 in
03. The Appellant had taken admission in 4th Semester of Post-
Graduation Course in Convergent Journalism in the Central University of
Kashmir. On 10th of August, 2021, the Appellant came to be arrested by the
police authorities of Police Station, Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar in FIR No.
84/2021 and because of this reason, he could not attend the classes and even
missed the End Semester Examination, held in the year 2021. The
Appellant claims to have approached the Respondent-University through
his parents for allowing him to sit in the 4 th Semester Examination, but
there was no response from the Respondent-University. It is with this
grievance the Appellant filed Writ Petition bearing WP (C) No. 1783/2022
before the Writ Court.
04. The aforesaid Writ Petition was contested by the Respondent-
University. It was the stand taken by the Respondent-University that the
representation received on behalf of the Appellant was considered by the
competent authority, but the Appellant was found ineligible to sit in the
final Examination of the Course in question. It was submitted that the
Appellant was supposed to complete his PG Programme with the ongoing
Semester students in the year 2021, but he failed to complete the Course in
terms of the provisions of Ordinance 5 of the University, which mandated
75% attendance and passing of CIA examination and related projects.
05. The Writ Court considered the rival contentions and came to
the conclusion that the Appellant had not attended the Course after taking
his admission in the End Semester and was, thus, devoid of 75% attendance
and had also failed to pass the CIA Examination and complete other
projects. In a nutshell, the Writ Court came to the conclusion that the
Appellant was not entitled to sit in the examination of 4 th Semester of PG
Course in Convergent Journalism because of his ineligibility and, therefore,
dismissed the Writ Petition.
06. The impugned Judgment is challenged by the Appellant, inter
alia, on the ground that the Writ Court has not appreciated Ordinance 5
issued in terms of Section 28 (1) (b) of the Central Universities Act, 2009 in
proper perspective and has also failed to take note of the fact that the
LPA No. 19/2024 in
requisite formalities could not be completed by the Appellant because of
07. Mr Makroo, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, would
submit that the father of the Appellant had informed the Respondent-
University in time about the arrest of the Appellant and had prayed for
making appropriate arrangements for conducting his End Semester
Examination in the jail. He would submit that the Respondent-University
paid no heed to the repeated requests of the father of the Appellant, which
constrained the Appellant to approach this Court.
08. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Judgment
impugned passed by the Writ Court is legally perfect and does not call for
any interference by this Court.
09. Ordinance 5 of the University, which is reproduced by the Writ
Court in Paragraph No.7 of the impugned Judgment, clearly provides that a
candidate, to be eligible to appear in End Semester Examination, must put
in at least 75% attendance in that Course/ Semester, in addition to satisfying
all other relevant conditions laid down in the regulation. It is true that the
Dean of the School, on the recommendation of the HOD concerned, is
vested with the powers to condone the shortage of attendance upto a
maximum of 5%, whereas the Vice Chancellor has similar power to
condone shortage beyond 5%, but upto 10% and, that too, for valid reasons.
However, as is rightly found out by the Writ Court, the Appellant had not
attended the classes of End Semester even for a single day because he was
lodged in jail. There is no provision in the Ordinance 5 which gives power
to the Respondent-University to declare the candidate eligible who is,
otherwise, ineligible in terms of the Ordinance.
10. The Writ Court has also adverted to Clause (13) of Ordinance
5 of the Central University to conclude that in addition to having 75%
attendance in the Semester, a candidate is also required to clear Continuous
Internal Assessment with a minimum of 50% marks and that the Appellant
LPA No. 19/2024 in
had not appeared in such Continuous Internal Assessment, nor had he
secured the minimum of 50% marks therein.
11. Given the above factual position, we see no good reason or
justification to take a view different from the one taken by the Writ Court. It
is not a case where the Appellant has missed to sit in the End Semester
Examination because of his lodgment in jail, rather, it is a case where the
Appellant, for reasons which may not be under his control, has failed to
attend even a single class of the Semester and clear the Continuous Internal
Assessment test with minimum of 50% marks, which is a statutory
requirement to be eligible to sit in the End Semester Examination. The
Respondent-University is not, in any manner, responsible for the
ineligibility that is incurred by the Appellant because of his lodgment in jail
or otherwise. The Appellant is facing serious charges and because of his
arrest in FIR No. 84/2021 of Police Station, Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar, he has
not been able to pursue the Course. The Respondent-University cannot be
held responsible for such a situation.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. The
same is, accordingly, dismissed, along with the connected CM. Interim
direction(s), if any subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated.
(Puneet Gupta) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
SRINAGAR
February 13th, 2025
"TAHIR"
i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes/ No.
