Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 215 (BOM)

Imran Mohammed Kasim Khan v. University of Mumbai

2018-01-22

B.P.COLABAWALLA, B.R.GAVAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Public Interest Litigation (L) No.15 of 2018 not on Board. Taken on Board. 2. The Public Interest Litigation arises out of peculiar circumstances. 3. On account of chaos created in the examination and particularly of the LLB examination, the results were delayed. The Petition after Petition were required to be filed before this Court pointing out various shortcomings in the system of the University. In some of the cases, revaluation is not properly done, in other cases, answer sheets and supplementary answer sheets were missing. 4. It appears that on account of delay in declaration of results, the fall out was delay in admission to LLM course. It appears that the last list of the students entitled to be admitted to LLM course was published on 10th January, 2018. Now, we are faced with the situation wherein challenge is made to the Notification which specifies that the examinations of the first semester of LLM Course would commence from 23rd January, 2018. We find that it is absolutely impossible for the students who have been admitted on/about 10th January, 2018 to have prepared for examination which is likely to commence from tomorrow. A similar difficulty would also be faced by the students who have been admitted in late December. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has prayed for stay to the examination which is likely to commence from tomorrow. However, we find that it is total 660 students who have been admitted for LLM course. It is quite possible that many of the students might have prepared themselves for the examination which is scheduled from tomorrow. 6. We find that in the absence of any representation from the students who may be willing to offer themselves for the examination, such blanket order would not be in the interest of justice. 7. However, equity demands that the students who have had a very short period after their admission to LLM also should not be prejudiced. 8. In that view of the matter, we find that the following order would sub-serve the interest of justice. (i) Such of students who do not appear in the examination which is scheduled to commence from tomorrow, such non appearance should not be considered as a failure to appear in the first semester examination. 8. In that view of the matter, we find that the following order would sub-serve the interest of justice. (i) Such of students who do not appear in the examination which is scheduled to commence from tomorrow, such non appearance should not be considered as a failure to appear in the first semester examination. (ii) Such students who opt not to appear in the examination commencing from tomorrow, would be permitted to appear for the examination of the papers of the first semester along with the papers for second semester simultaneously, and the said appearance would be treated as first appearance. The Respondent Authorities to act on an authenticated copy of this order.