Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMIT KUMAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF U.P. THRU' ITS SECRETARY

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Amit Kumar Singh v. The State Of U.P. Thru' Its Secretary-Technical Edu. & Anr. - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 140 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4545 (27 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 34

Special Appeal No. (140) of 2006

Amit Kumar Singh Vs. The State of U.P. and another

~~~~~

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2005 of a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 77358 of 2005 and for a direction upon the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in one remaining paper of third semester examination and in all the papers of sixth semester examination and the remaining paper of the fourth semester examination was dismissed by this Court.

The petitioner-appellant was admitted to the Diploma in Engineering Course for the Session 1990-2000 in the Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ''IERT'). The aforesaid Diploma Course is of three years with six semesters. The academic record of the petitioner in respect of the various semesters examinations has been far from satisfactory as is evident from the judgment. The order dated 28.11.2005 had been  impugned in the writ petition by which the petitioner was informed that he cannot appear at the fifth semester examination scheduled to be held in December, 2005 as he had exhausted all his chances and the maximum duration to complete the Diploma Programme as provided under Rule 15-B of the Rules.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Rules 15-A and 15-B of the Rules and the same are quoted below:-

"15 A No. of Chances: Each student shall be given three chances to pass the semester examination,  one as regular student and others as ex-student or repeater.

15 B Maximum Duration for a course: To complete a particular diploma programme the maximum duration shall be the double the number of academic sessions prescribed."

The learned Judge, in view of the limitation prescribed in the said Rule 15-B of the Rules for completing the Diploma Programme, refused to grant relief to the petitioner.

Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Rules 15-A and 15-B of the Rules have to be harmoniously read and since Rule 15-A of the Rules provides that each student shall be given three chances to pass the semester examination and the petitioner-appellant had not been given three chances, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, Rule 15-B of the Rules, which provides for maximum duration for a Course, clearly stipulates that to complete a particular Diploma Programme, the maximum duration shall be double the number of academic sessions prescribed. In the instant case, the Diploma Course was of three years and, therefore, the petitioner-appellant cannot be permitted to continue with the Course for any period above six years. Rule 15-A of the Rules operates in a different field and provides that each student shall be given three chances to pass the semester examination. According to us, whatever to be the reason for not clearing the examination whether it be because of failure after appearing at the examination or because of non-appearance at the examination, the maximum duration for which a candidate can continue in the Course is double the number of academic sessions prescribed. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order, which had been impugned in the writ petition or in the judgment of the learned Judge.

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt/- 27.2.2006

Sharma


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.