LPA--248/2018. Case: GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY Vs. ABHINAV PANDEY & ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberLPA--248/2018
CitationNA
Judgement DateOctober 16, 2018
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 01.10.2018

Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2018

+ LPA No.248/2018 & C.M. Nos.18034-35/2018

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA

UNIVERSITY .... Appellant

Through Ms.Ekta Sikri, Adv. with Mr.Jasbir

Bidhuri, Adv.

versus

ABHINAV PANDEY & ORS ..... Respondents

Through Dr.Amit George, Adv. with

Mr.Rishabh Dheer, Adv.,

Mr.Swaroop George, Adv. & Ms.Rajsree Ajay, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

REKHA PALLI, J

  1. The present intra court appeal impugns the judgment

    23.01.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2028/2016, allowing the captioned writ petition filed respondent no.1 and directing the appellant/Guru Gobind Indraprastha University (hereinafter referred to as the “University”) award a Gold Medal to the respondent no.1 for his remarkable

    academic performance in the five year B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) course conducted during the academic session 2010-2015.

  2. The relevant facts emerging from the record are that respondent no.1 was enrolled in the B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) course of respondent no.2/Amity Law School (hereinafter referred to “College”), which is affiliated with the appellant/University. The said course was for a period of five years, from 2010-2015, at the end which period, the respondent no.1 was to be awarded his degree in the year 2015. The respondent no.1 had admittedly been regularly appearing in all the semester examinations from time to time and obtained outstanding results. However, on 23.05.2013, during Sixth Semester Examinations, he contracted Chickenpox and severely ill and was, therefore, advised by the doctor not only to rest, but also to avoid physical contact with other persons, it being contagious disease.

  3. In the light of the medical advice given to him, the respondent no. 1 did not appear in two out of a total of five papers in the End Semester Examinations, namely, Code of Civil Procedure-2 Code of Criminal Procedure-2, which were scheduled to be held

    29.05.2013 and 31.05.2013 respectively, even though he had obtained very high marks in the internal examinations in the aforesaid subjects. Immediately on being given a Fitness Certificate

    03.06.2013 by the treating doctor at Central Government Health Scheme Wellness Centre, Gole Market, New Delhi, the respondent no.1 appeared in the remaining examinations of the Sixth Semester scheduled from 04.06.2013. Thereafter, in accordance with relevant Ordinance of the appellant/University, the respondent

    who had been marked “absent” in the aforesaid two subjects papers he had missed due to his illness, wrote the examination for the same the following year 2014, along with his already scheduled examinations of the Eighth Semester and once again, performed well.

  4. The respondent completed his B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) course in prescribed timeline of five years and when he graduated in the 2015, he obtained the highest Cumulative Performance Index (CPI) of

    80.56 in the appellant/University. Based on his performance, respondent no.1 expected that he would be awarded the Gold Medal which is conferred by the appellant/University upon the student the highest CPI, which is calculated on the basis of his/her performance throughout the entire course of study. However,

    27.02.2016, when the respondent no.1 visited the respondent no.2/College he learnt that he was being denied the Gold Medal despite his having obtained the highest CPI, on the ground that he had not cleared the aforementioned two examinations in the first attempt in the year 2013 and had only cleared the same in the next academic session, in the year 2014. Aggrieved by the same, he submitted representations to the Vice-Chancellor as also the Controller Examinations but to no avail.

  5. In the above circumstances, the respondent no.1 approached this Court by way of WP (C) No.2028/2016, seeking a direction to the appellant/University to award him the Gold Medal for the B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) course for the academic session 2010-15. In his writ petition, the respondent no.1 had also impleaded respondent no.3/Ms.Prachi

    Gupta, who had been awarded the Gold Medal for the same session even though she had a lesser CPI than him, i.e., 79.14.

  6. Upon notice being issued in the captioned writ petition separate counter affidavits were filed by the appellant/University the respondent no.3, both of whom opposed the claim of respondent no.1 by primarily contending that the main pre-requisite for awarding a Gold Medal was that the student must pass paper/course in the first attempt. Therefore, the respondent having not appeared on the first available attempt for paper/course and having cleared the same only in his subsequent attempts, did not fulfill the condition for award of a Gold Medal. appellant/University also contended that the respondent no.1 admittedly not cleared two subject papers of his Sixth Semester Examinations in the first attempt, namely, Code of Civil Procedure & Code of Criminal Procedure-2, when they were first offered in year 2013 and had passed the same only after being permitted to appear in the said examinations in the following year. Therefore, appellant/University could not be faulted for not conferring the Gol Medal upon the respondent no.1 and instead, awarding the same t respondent no.3 who had appeared for and secured the highest marks in every subject on the first available attempt.

  7. In support of his pleas, counsel for the respondent no.1 relied on Sovila Mathur v. Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University [MANU/RH/1631/2015], Shashi Kant Mall v. Chancellor & Ors. [AIR 1982 All. 56], Abhijit v. Dean, Government Medical College, Aurangabad & Anr. [1987 SC 1362], and Rubinder Brar v. Punjab University, Chandigarh & Anr. passed by the Punjab

    & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3269/1993. On other hand, counsel for the appellant/University had cited decisions in Dr. Rajkumar Shantilal Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [1988 Mh.L.J. 1022] and Mrs. Swathi B. v. Karnataka Law University, Hubli & Ors. [ILR 2015 KAR 491] .

  8. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 by placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Abhijit (supra), of the Rajasthan High Court in So Mathur (supra) , and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rubinder Brar (supra) by holding that the term “first attempt” has to considered in the light of the facts of each case and where a candidate fails to appear in an examination because of an illness, his non appearance in the said examination would not be a ground to impose a penalty on him or to hold that he had failed to pass the paper on first attempt. It may, however, be noted that the learned Single Judge while directing award of a Gold Medal to the respondent no.1, furthe observed that she would not like to disturb the status of the respondent no.3. Thus, the direction to the appellant/University was to award second Gold Medal to the respondent no.1. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been preferred the Appellant/University.

  9. Ms. Ekta Sikri, learned counsel for the appellant/University besides reiterating the submissions made before the learned Single Judge, contends that the Court has failed to appreciate the meaning of the term “first attempt”, which has led to a situation where a candidate who has to be treated as a student re-appearing in

    examinations, has been directed to be granted a Gold Medal. draws our attention to Ordinance 5 and Ordinance 11 of appellant/University and submits that the said Ordinances do not appearance in a supplementary examination as a first attempt even the student could not appear in the regular examination due to medical reasons.

  10. Ms. Sikri further contends that in the context of an academic course, the term “first attempt” viz-a-viz examinations, has a special meaning and necessarily connotes the very first time a student entitled/obligated to appear for an examination. Accordingly, where two students are expected to complete an academic course by taking a set examinations as per a fixed academic schedule, only the student who appears for the said examinations by strictly adhering to schedule can be said to have cleared the same in the first attempt, whereas the student who appears at a subsequent time, cannot treated as having passed the examinations in the first attempt. further submits that two such students cannot be treated as similarly placed as the latter student gets the advantage of more time to prepare for the same examination than the former student. In support herarguments, learned counsel has...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT