Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 377 (UTT)

Aditya Chamoli v. Uttarakhand Ayurveda University

2016-07-22

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate with Mr. Jayvardhan Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate, present for the respondent No. 1. 3. This Court has been informed by Mr. Jaywardhan Kandpal, who is an Advocate in other similar matters that he has also filed two writ petitions of similar nature, which are listed today before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court as defective. He prays that these matters may also be disposed of along with these petitions. 4. In the interest of justice the records of these cases (WPMS No. 2044 of 2016 and WPMS No. 2045) were summoned and are also being heard together. 5. In all these matters, the petitioners before this Court are the students of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (from hereinafter referred to as “BAMS”) in different Ayurved Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand, which are under affiliation of Uttarakhand Ayurved University (from hereinafter referred to as “University”). In some of the cases, petitioners are the students of Second Professional and they failed to appear in the supplementary examination, which were to be held on 30.05.2016 onwards. The plea of all these students is that they have no prior information about the examination, as the venue was changed at the eleventh hour and due to this practical difficulty, they were unable to attend the examination. 6. In other writ petitions, students are of first professional, who have been asked to repeat the first year examination since they have failed in one subject in their supplementary exam. According to those petitioners, there is no provision for asking the students of first professional to repeat the first professional, as such a provision is applicable only in 2nd and 3rd professionals. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent was asked to get instructions in the matter, considering the fact that this is a student matter and the anxiety of this Court was that avenues be explored under the law in order to save academic year of these students, who are petitioners before this Court in case it is permissible. The counsel for the Ayurveda University on the other hand submitted that such a decision is to be taken by the Examination Committee. The counsel for the Ayurveda University on the other hand submitted that such a decision is to be taken by the Examination Committee. Considering the above aspect, the Examination Committee is directed to redress the grievance of the petitioners and take a decision on it within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. 8. All these writ petitions stand disposed with a direction to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to refer the matter to the Examination Committee, in order to take a decision in the matter of these petitioners. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied within 24 hours to the learned counsel for the petitioners on the payment of usual charges.