High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vishal Tripathi And Others v. The Vice Chancellor/U.P.Tech.University And Others - WRIT - C No. 40415 of 2006  RD-AH 17585 (11 October 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40415 of 2006
Vishal Tripathi & others Vs. V.C., Technical University & Ors
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40543 of 2006
Abhishek Misra & others Vs. State of U.P. and others
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42932 of 2006
Om Jee Pandey Vs. V.C., Technical University & Ors
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44393 of 2006
Km.Shaifali Pawan & another Vs. V.C., Technical University & Ors
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44394 of 2006
Km. Neha Gupta & others Vs. V.C., Technical University & Ors
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44395 of 2006
Rahul Shukla & another Vs. V.C., Technical University & Ors
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46901 of 2006
Kuldeepak Gaur Vs. V.C.,Technical University & Ors
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46903 of 2006
Shashank Kumar Vs. V.C.,Technical University & Ors
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47626 of 2006
Ashish Kumar Pandey & another . Vs. State of U.P. and others
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47699 of 2006
Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46972 of 2006
Devesh Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
Since all these writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law, hence, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are being decided by a common judgment.
The petitioners, in all these writ petitions, are students of B.Tech. Course run by the U.P. Technical University (hereinafter referred to as the University). They all are students of various colleges affiliated to the said University, which have been arrayed as respondent in the respective writ petitions. All the students have failed in more than 4 theory papers, out of 10, in the first year (first and second semester) Examination 2005-06. As per the University Ordinance, a student who has failed in upto 4 papers in one year is to be promoted to the next year and is to be given a chance to appear in special carry over examination/back paper examination to be conducted during the course of the year. Such benefit is not to be extended to students who have failed in more than four papers in a year. All the petitioners have admittedly failed in more than four papers in first year examination. However, they are claiming benefit of a Circular issued by the Vice Chancellor on 8.8.2005 relating to the earlier academic session 2004-05, wherein opportunity to the students, who had failed in more than four papers in the first year, had been granted to appear in the special carry over/back paper examination. The petitioners claim that the said benefit should be extended to the students of next session 2005-06 also, and the petitioners should also be promoted to second year and permitted to appear in the special carry over/back paper examination which may be conducted by the University.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in all the writ petitions as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Pleading between the parties have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of at this stage.
Admittedly the petitioners are all students who have failed in more than four papers of the first year examination. The University in its Ordinance has given liberty to students who have failed in upto 4 papers to appear in special carry over/back paper examination so that they may get a chance to clear the four or less papers in which they have failed. The benefit may have been extended for one session to students who had failed in more than four papers but that could be for special reasons, which is for the University authorities to decide and as such the petitioners cannot claim benefit of such extension having been granted to students of the session 2004-05. The order dated 8.8.2005, by which such benefit had been extended for the session 2004-05 had become a part of the University Ordinance by way of an amendment, but the same was limited to the session 2004-05 only. For the subsequent academic sessions, the earlier prevailing provision would be applicable and the Ordinance of the University would prevail in the matter of examination, and since the same provide for such benefit being given to only such students who have failed in upto 4 papers in a year, the petitioners, who do not fall in that category would not be entitled to the relief claimed.
The action of the University in not permitting the petitioners to appear in the back paper examination is in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance of the University. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being discriminated, and the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to appear in the back paper examination, even though they have failed in more than four papers, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as such benefit was given to the students of the previous session, is not worthy of acceptance. The students of the previous session would fall in a separate class. It is not the case of the petitioners that some students of the academic session 2005-06 have been given such benefit which is being denied to the petitioners. Had the University authorities refused to grant the benefit which they would be entitled to, under the Ordinance of the University, their case would have been different.
Even otherwise the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is an extraordinary discretionary equity jurisdiction, and this Court would not like to exercise such jurisdiction in favour of students who are not meritorious and have failed in more than 4 papers, out of 10, in a year. The benefit of being permitted to appear in back paper has already been granted to students who have failed in upto 4 papers, which itself is quite liberal on the part of the University authorities and any further indulgence of being granted permission to such students who have failed in more than 4 papers, would not be justified. Even if said benefit had for some reasons, been granted in the past to students of a particular academic session, in my view, the petitioners cannot claim, as a matter of right, to be granted such benefit so as to perpetuate a wrong (if any) once committed by the University for all times to come. By an interim order dated 21.8.2006 this Court had required the Vice Chancellor to pass reasoned order for extending the benefit of the earlier order dated 8.8.2005, which was applicable for the students of session 2004-05, to the petitioners also. In compliance thereof the Vice Chancellor has, vide his order dated 2.9.2006, rejected such claim of the petitioners which order has also been challenged by way of amendment. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality with the said order. On a perusal of the said order I am satisfied with the reasons given therein, and am of the view that no interference is called for with the said order.
The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that on 17.8.2006 the University authorities had permitted the students of second and third year to be promoted to the next year without having been declared pass in the first year examination, meaning thereby that they had not cleared all the papers of the first year examination. Such order of the University would also not benefit the petitioners as all such students who may not have cleared the back paper, were the students who, under the University Ordinance, were eligible to appear in the back paper and for some reason or the other, the results of the same have yet not been declared. However, by the same order dated 17.8.2006 a stipulation had been made that although such students would be promoted, but their results would not be declared till they clear the first year examination. As such the petitioners herein do not fall in the category of such students who would be covered by the order dated 17.8.2006 because the latter would be a class of students w ho had been permitted to appear in the back paper within the ambit of the University Ordinance.
For the foregoing reasons, all these writ petition fail and are dismissed. No order as to cost.
In the end, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that some petitioners have already deposited the fees for appearing in the back paper examination of first year. If that be so, the respective colleges shall refund such fee which may have been deposited by the petitioners within three weeks of their filing such an application.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.