9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1585 - HC - Indian LawsRefusal of the respondents No. 1 2 University of Delhi of permission to the petitioner to take supplementary examination in the subject of Jurisprudence-II of VI th term Bachelor of Law (LLB) Programme - seeking a mandamus to the respondents University of Delhi and its Examination Branch to allow the petitioner to take the said examination - HELD THAT - The mere fact that the respondents University readmitted the petitioner to the LLB course would not make the other rule of the respondents University pertaining to span period inapplicable to the petitioner. Grant of a special chance to the petitioner, to take only the examination in the remaining paper of the Vth term and in the five papers of the VIth term, without so readmitting the petitioner, would have been futile for the petitioner. On the reasoning in Amit Kumar 2014 (11) TMI 1291 - DELHI HIGH COURT , the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this stage and has to await the outcome of the decision which the respondents University in Amit Kumar supra has been directed to take. The Supreme Court in Shangrila Food Products Ltd. Vs. LIC 1996 (7) TMI 571 - SUPREME COURT , Dwarka Nath Vs. ITO 1965 (3) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT , LIC Vs. Asha Goel 2000 (12) TMI 894 - SUPREME COURT and UOI Vs. R. Reddappa 1993 (8) TMI 319 - SUPREME COURT has held that Article 226 is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex-facie confers a wide power on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. The High Court is empowered to mould the relief to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. The Constitution does not place any fetters on the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226. It is left to the discretion of the High Court. This Court can, in exercise of such jurisdiction, take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice. Once this Court is satisfied of injustice or arbitrariness, then the restrictions on the exercise of power, self imposed or statutory, stand removed and no rule or technicality, on exercise of power, can stand in the way of rendering justice. Our country and its various institutions and authorities, in recognition of the service so rendered by the Defence Personnel to the nation, have devised several schemes conferring certain special benefits, advantages and reservations to them and to their family members. The Supreme Court, as far back as in D.N. Chanchala Vs. The State of Mysore 1971 (5) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT (LB) held that reciprocal obligations towards those who serve the interest of the country s security justified setting apart of certain seats in educational institutions for defence personnel. Such preferential treatment was held permissible under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. It was held that Defence personnel are at a disadvantage in the matter of education. However it appears that the respondents University, while stipulating the span period, has not considered the said factor and not provided a longer span period for Defence Personnel, considering the exigency of their services and duties. This Court will be failing in its duty if denies relief to the petitioner. The respondents University of Delhi is directed to allow the petitioner to complete the LLB course / degree by appearing in the examination of the remaining paper (Jurisprudence-II) of the VI th term of the LLB programme, subject of course to the petitioner complying with the requisite formalities - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Refusal of permission to take supplementary examination. 2. Application of "span period" for completing the LLB course. 3. Grant of "special chance" and its limitations. 4. Consideration of defense personnel's service in educational policies. 5. Exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: 1. Refusal of Permission to Take Supplementary Examination: The petitioner challenged the refusal by the University of Delhi to allow him to take a supplementary examination for the subject Jurisprudence-II of the VIth term of the LLB program. The petitioner had initially joined the LLB course in 2002, completed the first two years, and appeared for the Vth term examination in December 2004. However, due to joining the Indian Military Academy in January 2005, he could not complete the VIth term. Upon being posted back to Delhi in 2013, the petitioner sought to complete his degree, including taking the supplementary exam for a paper he failed in the Vth term. 2. Application of "Span Period" for Completing the LLB Course: The University of Delhi's regulations, under the Delhi University Act, 1922, prescribe a "span period" of six years for completing the three-year LLB course. The petitioner's span period expired in 2008. The University had earlier allowed special chances beyond the span period on a case-by-case basis but ceased this practice with a notification dated 10th October 2012. The petitioner's case was considered under a subsequent notification dated 14th March 2013, which allowed a one-time special chance for students to clear backlog papers. The petitioner was granted permission to appear in the Vth term exam and was re-admitted to the VIth term, where he cleared four out of five papers. 3. Grant of "Special Chance" and Its Limitations: The petitioner was granted a special chance to clear his backlog under the 14th March 2013 notification, with a clear stipulation that it would be the last opportunity. Despite clearing the Vth term, the petitioner failed one paper in the VIth term, leading to the denial of further opportunities. The University contended that the special chance was a one-time opportunity, and no further chances could be granted. 4. Consideration of Defense Personnel's Service in Educational Policies: The court recognized the petitioner's military service as a significant factor. The interruption in his education was due to his commitment to national service, including postings in Jammu & Kashmir and receiving several military honors. The court noted that defense personnel are often at a disadvantage in education due to their service commitments. The Supreme Court has previously acknowledged the need for special considerations for defense personnel in educational policies, emphasizing the importance of recognizing their sacrifices and contributions. 5. Exercise of High Court's Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasized its power to grant relief to serve the ends of justice. The court cited precedents where relief was granted despite the absence of a legal right, to address injustice or arbitrariness. The court found that denying the petitioner the opportunity to complete his education would be unjust, given his service to the nation and the importance of education as a fundamental right and element of individual dignity. Consequently, the court directed the University to allow the petitioner to take the remaining examination for Jurisprudence-II, subject to compliance with requisite formalities. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition, directing the University of Delhi to permit the petitioner to complete his LLB degree by taking the pending examination. Additionally, the court instructed the University to consider whether exceptions for defense personnel should be incorporated into the span period rules, reflecting the special regard due to those who serve the country.
|
