Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 229 (HP)

Manaswini Dube v. H. P. National Law University

2024-04-02

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice . Petitioner is a final year student/scholar of Batch 2019-24, pursuing her B.B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Degree from the H.P. National Law University (respondent) (for short “the University”). 2) The said University is located in the outskirts of Shimla in Himachal Pradesh. 3) In the months of July & August, 2023, there was heavy rain fall and extreme weather conditions. 4) Therefore, the admissions of existing Batches in the next higher year though notified through a Notice dt. 24.07.2023 by the respondent-University to start from 24.7.2023 and to be completed by 07.08.2023, time was further extended thereafter up to 31.08.2023 through a Notification dt. 26.08.2023. 5) The petitioner was to get admission to her 9th Semester/5th year at that time. The Admission Form was to be filled up by the respective students by logging in their PRP Portal and filling up the Admission Form. They were also required to pay the requisite fee. These were clearly mentioned in the Notices dt. 24.07.2023 & 01.08.2023. 6) Though 31.08.2023 was fixed as the last date for payment of fee, the pe titioner made an application on 19.09.2023 vide Diary no.6030, requesting for condonation of delay in submitting the Admission Form and further requesting for admission to the 9th Semester/5th year of the course beyond the notified admission date of 31.8.2023. The petitioner, however, paid the fee on 12.09.2023 and gave a written application on 19.09.2023, as mentioned above, pleading that due to certain financial constraints, she was unable to pay the fee on time and that she had paid the same along with the penalty and claiming that the only reason behind her non-admission is her delay in payment of fee. She requested for access to her PRP Portal to complete the remaining admission formalities. 7) The respondent-University sent an email on 26.09.2023 to the petitioner stating that though the University had extended the last date of admission till 31.08.2023, she had failed to utilize even the extended time period for admission and delayed submitting her application form till 19.09.2023; by that date almost 50% of the classes had already been conducted and the date-sheet for End Semester Examination had already been notified from 03.10.2023. It was pointed out that petitioner had neither got admission as per the schedule nor would be able to comply with the requisite percentage of attendance of 70%. It was pointed out that petitioner had neither got admission as per the schedule nor would be able to comply with the requisite percentage of attendance of 70%. It was also pointed out that as per cl ause 3C.6 of the Academic Regulations, 2019 if a student fails to take admission within the prescribed time period, he/she shall be required to re-register in the previous year and shall not be considered for promotion to next higher year. 8) The petitioner then went on making representations to the Chancellor and also to the Vice Chancellor of the University on 04.10.2023, 05.10.2023 & 09.10.2023, respectively. 9) The respondent-University however reiterated its stand contained in the email dt. 26.09.2023 in a response dt. 11.10.2023 addressed to the petitioner. The filing of this Writ Petition on 27.12.2023 10) The petitioner disputed the stand of the University in a letter Annexure P-13 and then filed the instant Writ petition on 27.12.2023, seeking the following reliefs:- “A. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other order/direction to Respondents quashing their orders dated 26.09.2023 & 11.10.2023 (i.e. Annexures P-8 and Annexure P-11) issued by Respondents and further, admit her at par with her colleagues/batch-mates of 5th year. B. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ of in the nature of mandamus or order/direction to Respondents to allow the petitioner to attend the classes, stay in hostel and appear in the examinations. C. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ of in the nature of mandamus or order/directions to Respondents to make arrangements for Petitioner to be brought at par with other students of 5th year.” 11) It is pertinent to point out that by the time the petitioner had filed the instant Writ petition, the 9th Semester had ended on 31.11.2023 itself and the 10th Semester was to commence after the winter vacation from 20.2.2024. Thus, she had missed the entire 9th Semester Course. Thus, she had missed the entire 9th Semester Course. 12) Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contention of the petitioner that installments of fee have to be paid semester-wise and due to financial constraints, she was unable to arrange money to be paid in time and she was able to pay on 12.09.2023 a sum of Rs.2,18,548/- alongwith Rs.5,000/- penalty, and that in spite of the same, the University did not admit the petitioner. 13) Counsel further contended that the petitioner had a good academic record, coupled with an impeccable co-curriculum record, and the action on the part of the University violates her right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) and also violates Art.14 of the Constitution of India. 14) Petitioner referred to certain instances in the past where a liberal attitud e was adopted by the University and students were allowed to rectify their mistakes. 15) Counsel also contended that petitioner was inflicted a punishment which is not commensurate/proportional to the omission on her part and that her future cannot be put in jeopardy by the University. Events after filing the Writ Petition 16) Initially, notice was ordered in the Writ petition on 28.12.2023 for filing reply and on 12.03.2024, an interim order was passed as under:- “In the interim, it is ordered that in case petitioner has been denied admission in 10th semester on account of delay in payment of admission fee, she shall be given provisional admission, subject to outcome of the writ petition, so that she does not subsequently suffer on account of shortage of lectures. But in case admission has been denied to the petitioner on some other grounds, then aforesaid protection granted by this Court shall not come to her rescue.” 17) On receipt of the order passed by the Court on 12.03.2024, the respondent-University replied on 16.03.2024, reiterating its stand that the last date for completion of admission process was 31.08.2023, but the petitioner had belatedly made the application on 19.09.2023; by that time 40% of the classes had already been conducted; and by 19.09.2023, the date-sheet of the End Semester Examination had already been notified from 03.10.2023; that since petitioner was not admitted and had not attended any class, she would not be able to comply with the requisite attendance percentage of 70%. 18) The University also pointed out that the study in the 9th Semester commenced in the month of July, 2023 itself and the said semester had ended by holding exams from 03.10.2023 and the petitioner through her email dt. 13.03.2024, had sought admission to the 10th Semester in the ongoing Academic Session, which commenced from 20.02.2024, which cannot be permitted since there is no provision for lateral entry into 10th Semester straightway, without being admitted and clearing the conditions of being admitted in the 9th Semester. 19) It was categorically stated that her case was dealt with not as one where there was a mere delay in deposit of fee, but it was a case where she had abandoned obtaining admission to the 9th Semester. 20) Therefore, the case of the petitioner falls in the other reasons “mentioned in the interim order of the High Court” and the admission, therefore, cannot be granted to her due to the said reason and not on account of non-deposit of fee. 21) Counsel for the University also stated that the petitioner was given a personal hearing on 18.03.2024 before the University Official Board and during the personal hearing also, she was unable to explai n why she had made the application on 19.09.2023 for admission to the 9th Semester. 22) Counsel for the University reiterated that there was no illegality in the action of the University in denying to the petitioner admission to the 9th & 10th Semesters of the above course. Consideration by the Court 23) We have noted the submissions of both sides. 24) Admittedly, the course to which the petitioner is admitted is a professional course in the study of law. 25) Petitioner had already completed 4 years of the 5 years’ course and as per the Norms of the University, she had to get herself admitted at the beginning of the 9th Semester by filling a form online, as mentioned in the Notice dt. 24.07.2023 and also the Notice dt. 01.08.2023. 26) The 9th Semester commenced from 24.07.2023 with the students who were able to get admission online, but the time for getting admission on account of adverse weather conditions was extended up to 31.08.2023 to others who could not take the necessary steps to seek admission. 27) The 9th Semester exams were to commence from 03.10.2023. 01.08.2023. 26) The 9th Semester commenced from 24.07.2023 with the students who were able to get admission online, but the time for getting admission on account of adverse weather conditions was extended up to 31.08.2023 to others who could not take the necessary steps to seek admission. 27) The 9th Semester exams were to commence from 03.10.2023. 28) There is no valid explanation coming-forth from the petitioner as to why she made application for admission only off-line and not online on 19.09.2023 and not before 31.08.2023. 29) In spit e of this Court asking the petitioner about the reason for the alleged delay in making the application for admission, her counsel could not give any reason for the same. 30) We see no reasons to disbelieve the stand of the respondent-University that admission process had commenced from 24.07.2023 and classes had also commenced by then, though more time was granted to the students for admission up to 31.08.2023 on account of the adverse weather conditions; and that by 19.09.2023, substantial syllabus had also been completed and the semester’s examination was notified from 03.10.2023, a mere 14 days from the date of the petitioner’s application. 31) Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that minimum requirement of attendance is 70% and there was no way petitioner would be able to comply with the said requirement by attending the course from 19.09.2023 by 3.10.2023. 32) Counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 37 of the Himachal Pradesh National Law University Act, 2016 (in short “the Act”) requires compliance with Principles of Natural Justice before taking any disciplinary action against a student. 33) The said provision, in our opinion, has no application since the instant case is not one of disciplinary action at all for any misco nduct committed by the petitioner. Also since she was admittedly given an opportunity for hearing on 18.03.2024, she cannot complain of violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 34) The other plea of the counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 8 of the Act, the Chancellor of the University, i.e. the Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, had extraordinary powers and in the exercise of such powers, relief ought to be granted to the petitioner. 34) The other plea of the counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 8 of the Act, the Chancellor of the University, i.e. the Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, had extraordinary powers and in the exercise of such powers, relief ought to be granted to the petitioner. 35) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner had not made out any case for exercise of any such extraordinary power by the Chancellor, since on account of her own fault in making the application long after the last date for seeking admission had closed, she would not have been able to fulfill the requirement of attendance of 70% mandated by the University’s Regulations. 36) Therefore, we do not find any error in the action of the respondent-University, which can be termed to be violative of either Art.19(1)(g) or Art.14 of the Constitution of India, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 37) We, therefore, do not find any merit in the instant Writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 38) Pendi ng miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.