Deepika Sharma D/O Shri Kailash ... vs Rajasthan University Of Health ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7303 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1010/2021

Deepika Sharma D/o Shri Kailash Chand Kaushik, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of 3 Ma 473, Indira Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura,
Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.        Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Jaipur Through
          Its Registrar, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar,
          Tonk Road, Jaipur-302033
2.        The Controller Of Examination, Rajasthan University Of
          Health Sciences, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar,
          Tonk Road, Jaipur-302033
3.        Vice Chancellor, Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences,
          Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road,
          Jaipur-302033
4.        Principal, B.N. Girls College Of Pharmacy, Udaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Bhrigu Sharma
For Respondent(s)         :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Judgment

07/12/2021

The appellant original petitioner has challenged the judgment

dated 17/08/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ

Petition No.24128/2018.

The brief facts are that the petitioner was admitted in B.

Pharmacy Course in the year 2004 in Mohan Lal Sukhadia

University, Udaipur. She appeared in the periodic examinations

however in some of them, she could not clear the papers. She

(2 of 3) [SAW-1010/2021]

cleared Pharmacology-II in fourth attempt and Pharmaceutical

Chemistry-IV she attempted five times but failed. She appeared in

B. Pharmacy Part-IV examination and failed in all five papers. She

cleared two papers in March, 2013 in seventh attempt. Rest of the

papers, she appeared in June, 2013 when in the eight attempt,

she cleared two papers. For four years, the petitioner made no

further attempt till in the year 2018, she submitted her form for

appearing in remaining papers. She was not allowed to appear

upon which she filed the petition in which provisional permission

was granted. She appeared in two papers. She requested for

declaration of the result. The learned Single Judge dismissed the

petition making the following observations:-

"This court has examined these aspects at length. Students who joined the degree course have to pass the course in eight academic years from the order of admission. The petitioner is a person who has been consistently failing in clearing the exams despite giving further chances to her. She joined the course in 2004 and it is 2021 almost 16 years have lapsed. A student who has not been able to clear her papers even if sixteen years does not deserve any sympathy from this court. Equity is also not in her favour.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the eight attempts is only introduced by an amendment made in 2011 and would not be applicable to the students who were admitted in 2004, is also without force. Even if there may not have been any Rule prior to 2011, still the students cannot be expected to continue as students for years together and pass examinations at their own leisure.

In view thereof, the prayer made by the petitioner is found to be without merit and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of."

We have no hesitation in approving the order of the learned

Single Judge. For close to 16 years the petitioner could not clear

the course of Pharmacy which is of four years course. The

University has cited Rules of 2018 which limits the total duration

(3 of 3) [SAW-1010/2021]

of course to eight years maximum. The petitioner has not

produced any previous rule which related to the maximum

duration of the span to consume. Without any such material, it is

not possible to allow the petition on the petitioner's contention

that the rule prescribing eight years limitation was introduced in

the year 2018 and that cannot be applied to the petitioner since it

would amount to retrospective operation of the rule. Quite apart,

the petitioner's own conduct would inspire no confidence. Having

failed repeatedly, she disappeared from the scene and applied for

clearing the paper after four years.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. All pending

applications are also disposed of.

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

ANIL KUMAR GOYAL / BM GANDJHI/37

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)