University of Delhi and Another vs Annmary Luke Kocherry and Others

CM No. 20073/2012 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

LPA No. 787/2012 & CM No. 20072/2012 (for stay)

This intra court appeal is preferred against the order dated 22nd November, 2012 of the learned single Judge on the application of the respondents/writ petitioners (in W.P.(C) No. 7266/0212) for interim relief. The respondents/writ petitioners being the students of the appellant university have filed the said writ petition impugning the Notification dated 10th October, 2012 of the appellant university doing away with the practice earlier prevalent of grant of "special chance" beyond the stipulated span period for the various courses i.e. the maximum period in which a course offered by the university is to be completed, it appears that as per the said practice, the Standing Committee (Students) of the Academic Council of the appellant university and the vice-chancellor used to entertain applications of students who had been unable to complete their courses even within the span period, for taking the examination beyond the said period, and on being satisfied with the explanation given, grant a chance to appear in the examination beyond the span period also.

The learned Single Judge has vide the interim order (impugned in this appeal) permitted the respondents/writ petitioners to still apply for the said special chance and has directed the Standing Committee (Students) of the Academic Council of the appellant University and the Vice-Chancellor to, if find justifiable reasons, grant such special chance to the respondents/writ petitioners for appearing in the examination which were to commence from 30th November, 2012. The reason which prevailed with the learned Single Judge for granting the said interim relief was that the said notification doing away with the past practice had taken the students by surprise. However, the learned Single Judge has clarified that no special equities will flow in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners from being so allowed, under interim arrangement, to take the exam and has further directed the result of the said examination to be kept in a sealed cover.

Counsel for the appellant University has fairly stated that the appellant University has allowed the respondents/writ petitioners to appear in the examination which commenced from 30th November, 2012. It is however stated that a large number of other writ petitions are being filed and in which, following the order impugned in this appeal, similar interim arrangement is being granted. It is stated that some of such petitions have been filed by persons whose span period had expired long back, merely to take advantage of the interim order made in the instant petition.

Counsel for the appellant University has argued that the notification impugned in the writ petition is a decision of the academic experts; that it was realized that granting such special chance was lowering the standard of the appellant University and the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the said decision of the experts.

However, the question raised, is one which would be gone into at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. This appeal is only against the order of interim arrangement. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has taken enough care in the interim order to safeguard the appellant University by providing that the students who were under the interim arrangement permitted to take the examination, if ultimately lose, will not be entitled to take the benefit of the result of the said examination. Moreover, it is not as if the learned Single Judge has allowed all such students to appear in the examination. The decision, whether in the facts pleaded by each of such students, special chance deserves to be granted or not is still left to the authorities of the University, who if find a particular student to be not deserving a special chance under the order of the learned Single Judge, have the discretion to refuse the same. No case is thus made out for interfering in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.