Writ Petition in Delhi HC for a Set-Up Mechanism for the Students to be allowed to take Back-Papers.
Updated: Sep 14, 2020
A writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court. The Petitioner prefers this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, Direction of like nature directing the Respondents to set-up mechanism to allow the petitioners referred herein 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. Advocate Amit Kumar Sharma was pivotal in shaping this case.
The Respondents issued notification dated 22.08.2017 after the Petitioners had secured the admission in the institution in the month of July in 2017, the Respondents vide the said notification changed the method of conducting supplementary examinations for the final year students, whereby they have done away with the opportunity of reappearing and attempting supplementary examination for any backlog paper that they may have from the first, second, third and fourth semester, thereby depriving the Petitioners the opportunity to appear and clear their backlog paper with the supplementary examination which is compulsorily held after the regular semester examination. Therefore, as per the impugned (new) rule, students can only attempt and appear in the supplementary examination for backlog paper/s that they might have in fifth and sixth semester exclusively, thereby diluting the principle of supplementary examination and also forcing the Petitioners to appear in the regular course of the examination, thereby causing the Petitioner to wait and lose 9-10 months for graduation.
The Respondents have revised the earlier rule and brought forth the said impugned rule of excluding all backlog semester paper other than fifth and sixth semester supplementary examination by erroneously interpreting the judgement of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Aditya 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.
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 them. The Petitioners have sought the intervention of the Delhi High Court in the present matter, as the educational endeavours of the petitioners herein will be delayed and stigmatized if the said impugned notification dated is made applicable on the Petitioners, thereby causing the Petitioners irreparable loss to any and all future avocations that the Petitioners so wish to pursue.