Writ Petition Filed In The Delhi HC With Respect To Supplementary Exams
Updated: Jul 31, 2020
News Article covered by Ayush Kumar
A Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, Directions was filed in Delhi High Court. The issuance was of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, Directions of similar nature directing the Respondents to set-up mechanism to allow the petitioners herein to be allowed to take Supplementary Examinations for papers of first, second, third and fourth semester respectively with the supplementary examinations for the papers of the fifth and sixth semester as and when they are scheduled by the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.
Faculty of Law, University of Delhi have issued notification dated 22.08.2017 after three students (petitioners) had secured admission in the Faculty of Law, Delhi University in the month of July 2017. In a recent notification issued by the Faculty, the method of conducting supplementary examinations for the final year students have changed wherein the Respondents have been deprived of the opportunity of reappearing and attempting supplementary examination for any backlog paper that they may have from First, Second, Third and Fourth semesters with the supplementary examination which are compulsorily held after the regular semester examinations.
As per the new rule, students can only attempt and appear in the supplementary examination i.e. student can now only attempt and appear for backlog paper/s that they might have in fifth and sixth semesters exclusively thereby diluting the principle of supplementary examination and also forcing the petitioners to appear in regular course of examination which in turn will make the students wait for the next 9- 10 months for graduation.
Aditiya N Prasad wherein their lordships have made no such observation, reference and or direction in the judgement from which it can be interpreted that the rule of supplementary examination is required to be changed.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocates Amit Sharma & Satyam Singh, referring to a previous judgment in the case of Aditiya N. Prasad, argued that the said notification dated 22.08.2017 cannot be applied to the present batch of the Petitioners as the said rule was notified after the petitioners have acquired admission to the University and therefore the said notification cannot apply to the Petitioners.
The Petitioners seeked the intervention of the Court in the matter citing:“The educational endeavours of the petitioners herein will be delayed and stigmatized, if the said impugned notification dated ___/ is made applicable on the petitioners herein, thereby causing the petitioners irreparable loss to any and all future avocations that the Petitioners so wish to pursue.”
In this case, Sr. Adv and Retired Justice Rajesh Tandon also appeared today.