Ku. Niharika Saraf vs Rani Durgawati University

As a common question of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions and as interpretation of a provision common to both the cases is involved, both the petitions are being heard and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the records of W.P. No. 2017/2013 are being referred to in this order. Petitioners in both the cases were granted admission to the L.L.M. Semester Course by the Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya in the Academic Session 2009-10. They appeared in the 1st Semester Examination for L.L.M. conducted in July, 2013, thereafter, they appeared in the 3rd Semester Examination, the main examination was conducted on 31.10.2011 and the results were declared. As far as the petitioner in W.P. No. 2017/2013 is concerned, she failed in one subject, namely Human Right and Disadvantage Groups. Similarly, petitioner in W.P. No. 2320/2013 failed to get the minimum aggregate marks in the same semester examination, that was conducted on 31.10.2011. However, these candidates were declared as failed, and eligible to appear in the supplementary examination for one paper, under the ATKT Scheme. However, they again appeared in the examination i.e. the Supplementary Examination and when the results were declared in June, 2012, petitioner in W.P. No. 2017/2013 again failed in the subject in question and petitioner in W.P. No. 2320/2013 could not get aggregate marks. Now petitioners in both the cases have approached this Court contending that they be permitted to appear in the examination again for one paper under the ATKT Scheme.

Respondent/University resists the claim of the petitioners and places reliance on Clause-16 and 23 of Ordinance 23-A and it is argued by Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the University that a student, who is appearing in the examination for L.L.M. Course shall be given only two chances to pass the semester examination i.e. one main examination and other the next odd or even semester and if the student has availed of both the chances, no further chance for appearing in the examination shall be given under the ATKT Scheme, but the candidate will have to appear in all the papers as a Ex-student.

Placing reliance on these clauses, learned counsel for the University has submitted that the petitioners in both the cases have availed of both the chances, one the main examination and other the supplementary examination that was held in June, 2012. Now in the light of the Ordinance No. 23-A, no further permission can be granted to the petitioners for appearing in the examination.

Learned counsel for the petitioners refuted the aforesaid and placed reliance on Clause-36(3) of Ordinance Clause-6 to say that the candidate can still be permitted to appear in the examination.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. As far as the factual aspects of the matter are concerned, there is no dispute. The only dispute in question is as to whether, the petitioners now can be permitted to avail of the 3rd Chance for appearing in the subject in question. The provisions for admission to the L.L.M. Course in the University in question is governed by a statutory ordinance. The ordinance is available on record as Annexure-P2 and is Ordinance No. 23-A. Clause-16 of the aforesaid ordinance contemplates that a student with ATKT or short in aggregate shall be given two chances to pass the semester examination and the two chances are explained by saying that one is the main examination and the other in the odd or even semester. For the sake of convenience, Clause-16 is reproduced herein under:

A student with ATKT or short in aggregate shall be given two chances to pass the semester Examinations i.e. one main + other in the next odd or even semester.

Thereafter, Clause-23 of the same Ordinance reads as under:

No student shall be permitted to execute answer Master of Laws (L.L.M.) Course after three years from the date of his admission in 1st Semester Examination

According to Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi, as the petitioners were admitted to the course in question in July, 2010, after July 2013 i.e. after a period of three years of their admission to the said semester, they cannot be permitted to be appeared in any other examination. Accordingly, it is the objection of the University that no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

We have considered the aforesaid submission and find that the contention of the University is correct. Ordinance No. 23-A is a specific ordinance framed, relating to examination for awarding of degree in Masters of Law. As far as Clause-36(3) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it seems to be a part of the General Ordinance bearing Ordinance No. 6 pertaining to various other examination. As far as conferring the degree of Masters of Law is concerned, the relevant ordinance is prescribed and when a particular ordinance is prescribed for a particular course, the entire examination has to be undertaken as per the said ordinance only.

In the present case, as a specific ordinance is formulated by the University and as this ordinance has a statutory force, we see no reason to interfere into the matter and grant permission to the petitioner for appearing in the examination. Ordinance 23-A reproduced hereinabove, clearly shows that the petitioners cannot be granted any relief. Clause-16 of Ordinance 23-A is very specific in term and the two chances indicated therein is explained by saying, one is the main examination and second is the next odd or even semester. Its a case, where both the petitioners have availed of all the two chances i.e. one in the main examination and second in the next supplementary examination, that was held on 31.10.2011 and they have failed in both the examination.

That apart, as they have not been able to complete the course in accordance with Clause-23 of the Ordinance 23-A, we see no reason to make any further indulgence into the matter. This Court exercising limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot issue any mandamus to the respondent/University, which runs contrary to the Ordinance 23-A. If it is the case of the petitioner that the ordinance is acting too harsh on the petitioners, petitioners should take recourse to the remedy available under law by approaching the authorities of the University, who can exercise any discretionary power available in the matter. In view of the ordinance brought on record, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to the remedy available by approaching the University for redressal of their grievance, this petition is dismissed.