Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 18 (MP)

Rajesh Kaul v. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya

2015-01-06

RAJENDRA MENON, S.K.GANGELE

body2015
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition on 5.9.2014 and seeks direction from this Court to permit the petitioner to clear the remaining papers of LL.B. (three year) course. 2. Facts in nutshell goes to show that the petitioner took admission in the 3 Year Degree Course (LL.B.) in the year 1999 as a regular student in the respondent No.2/institute, which was affiliated to respondent No.1/University. It seems that the petitioner appeared in the LL.B. Part III examination sometime in the year 1998-99 and did not clear all the papers. The petitioner seems to have failed in some of the subjects. However it is the case of the petitioner that after the examination was held in the year 1999 the result and mark sheet were not made available to him, he kept on representing for getting the mark sheet right from the year 1999 vide Annexure P1, took steps for obtaining the mark sheet under the Right to Information Act in the year 2012 and thereafter on 10.7.2012 vide Annexure P2 when the mark sheet was issued petitioner found that he has failed in certain subjects and thereafter sought permission to appear in the said subjects. The University placed the matter before the appropriate council and the council having found that the petitioner cannot be permitted to appear in the failed subjects, now under the changed circumstances, rejected the claim vide Annexure P4, therefore this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as there was inordinate delay in issuing of the mark sheet, the petitioner is entitled to appear in the failed subjects now and therefore a mandamus in this regard be issued. The delay in filing the petition is explained by the petitioner by contending that right from the year 1999 petitioner was representing and it was only in July, 2012 that he was informed that he has failed in certain subjects. 4. Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No.1 refuted the aforesaid contention and submitted that the mark sheet was issued to the petitioner well within time in the year 1999 and when further request was made in the year 2012 markshet was again issued to the petitioner. 4. Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No.1 refuted the aforesaid contention and submitted that the mark sheet was issued to the petitioner well within time in the year 1999 and when further request was made in the year 2012 markshet was again issued to the petitioner. Shri Pandit also submitted that the 3 Year Degree Course, which was existing at the relevant time in the year 1999 was abolished after the Ordinance No.111 had come into force from the academic session 2012-13 and now permission to appear in the examination in the old pattern of LL.B. 3 Year Course cannot be granted. The petitioner having slept over the matter since 1999 upto 2012, now permission to conduct examination under the old pattern particularly after the revised Ordinance No.111 has been issued from the academic session 2012-13, is not permissible. 5. We have considered the rival contention and we find that the petitioner has slept over the matter and now the statutory rules for conduct of examination has changed, therefore no indulgence can be made. Petitioner appeared in the aforesaid examination in April-May 1999 and if for a reasonable time the University did not issue the mark sheet, petitioner should have represented the matter and approached this Court within a reasonable time. From the documents available on record it appears that after the examination was conducted in April-May 1999, the petitioner did not represent till 2012 and for the first time the representation alongwith an appropriate acknowledgment of the petitioner available on record indicate that it was made sometime in June-July 2012 as is evident from Annexure P-3. Even though petitioner has filed Annexure P1 collectively to show that petitioner has been representing in the matter since 1999, but Annexure P1 is a simple application without any receipt of its sending or acknowledgment by the University. That apart from the perusal of Annexure P3 it is evident that for the first time an application was sent in the year 2012. 6. That apart from the perusal of Annexure P3 it is evident that for the first time an application was sent in the year 2012. 6. That being so, it is a case where after appearing in the examination in April-May 1999 petitioner slept over the matter right upto 2012 and woke up only in the year 2012, in the meantime the entire examination system has changed after coming into force of Ordinance No.111 from the academic session 2012-13 and the process of examination which was existing in 1999 has changed after coming into force of Ordinate No.111. Once the statutory rule for examination has changed, we cannot issue any direction to the University to conduct examination for the petitioner under the old system which was prevalent at the time when petitioner appeared in the examination i.e. 1999. However as the petitioner has slept over since 1999 to 2012 and after coming into force of Ordinance No.111, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit now, particularly when the system of examination which is statutory in nature has changed. Therefore contrary to the statutory rules, no directions can be issued to permit the petitioner to appear and undertake fresh examination in the failed subjects as per the old scheme. 7. Accordingly finding no case for indulgence, we dismiss this writ petition for the reasons as indicated hereinabove. Smt. Devika Singh for petitioner; Shreyas Pandit for respondent No.1.