Delhi High Court: Students had Adequate Notice to Plan their Academic and Examination Schedules as Per Changed Rule

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

On 7th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh heard the case of Sandesh Jha & Ors. v. State of Delhi And Others via video conferencing.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioners in this case were studying in their fifth semester of the LLB course, in the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (DU). The Petitioners have challenged the impugned notification dated 22nd August 2017 and a notice dated 9th October 2017, by which the method of conducting supplementary examinations had been changed for the final year students. The grievance of the Petitioners was that they had taken admission in the Faculty of Law, DU in 2017, and the notifications which were issued on 22nd August 2017 and 9th October 2017 cannot be applied retrospectively.

Contentions of the Petitioners

Mr Rajesh Tandon, Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the settled position was that the notification ought not to have been given effect to, and the rules for the conduct of supplementary examinations cannot be changed after the students have already taken admission. 

The Counsel placed reliance on the case of Vikas Bhaskar v. University of Delhi And Anr. which held that an amendment ordinance cannot be applied retrospectively. Thus, the Counsel submitted that though the students were in their fifth semesters, they would be governed by the position which was prevalent prior to the impugned notifications, as was applicable since 2014.

Mr Satyam Singh, counsel appearing for the 2nd Petitioner. submitted that the retrospective applicability of the notification was not permissible as the students had a legitimate expectation.

Contentions of the Respondent

Mr Mohinder J. S. Rupal, counsel for the DU, submitted that it had been clarified that the notification would apply with effect from the academic year 2017-18. He further submitted that the students, in this case, may have been admitted in July 2017, however, the admission process continued till the end of August 2017 and they had been aware of the method of conduct of supplementary examinations for the past three years. Thus, their challenge to the notification was overdue as the said notification had taken effect and had been applied in the last two years as well.

Court’s Analysis

The Court apprehended that the primary grievance of the Petitioners was that the method of conduct of the supplementary examinations had been changed by the DU in August 2017 while they had taken admission in July 2017. Thus, the Court looked into the comparison of the previous method of conducting supplementary examinations and the method of conduct of the supplementary examinations prevalent later on.

The Court opined that a law or amendment cannot operate retrospectively so as to divest a person of his/her vested legal rights. The University of Delhi had failed to consider the effect of the Impugned Notice on the students who had already planned their examination schedules for two years as per the notification dated 14.11.2014 and there was no justification for taking away the rights of the students to take their supplementary examinations as per the unamended ordinance, at such an overdue stage.

The Court further opined that the students who had taken admission before the academic year 2017-18 deserved at least one opportunity to take their supplementary examinations as per the unamended ordinance. The Court also clarified that it had not interfered with the applicability of the Impugned Notice to students who had taken admission after the academic year 2016-17, since such students had adequate notice and ample opportunity to plan their academic and examination schedules as per the changed rules regarding supplementary examinations.

The Court also stated that it would not entertain belated challenge w.r.t. legitimate expectation as, the students, since 2017, had already been informed as to the manner and method as well as the frequency of the conduct of the supplementary examinations.

Court’s Decision

The petition and all pending applications were disposed of by the Court. The University of Delhi was directed to grant one opportunity to all the students of the LLB Course, who had taken admission prior to the academic year 2017-18, to take their supplementary examinations as per the unamended rules/ordinance contained in notification dated 14.11.2014.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -