Delhi High Court - Orders
Vedansh Pandey & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 August, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~92
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13094/2019 & CM APPLs. 53384/2019, 13612-13613/2020,
21487-21488/2020, 47833/2021, 17371-17373/2022
VEDANSH PANDEY & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Petitioners No. 1 & 2 in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Senior
Panel Counsel for R-1/ UOI.
Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Mr. Saurabh
Sharma and Mr. Shivam Sachdeva,
Advocate for R-2/ BCI.
Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Mr. Aakash
Pathak and Ms. V. Bhawani,
Advocates for R-3/ University of
Delhi.
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Ms. Nidhi Mittal
and Mr. Ojaswa Pathak, Advocates for
R-6/ UGC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 05.08.2022 CM APPL. 47834/2021 (under Rule 1-A of Rules framed by the High Court of Delhi on behalf of Petitioners for issue of writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
1. In order to deal with the application, it would be apposite to refer to the previous orders of this Court dated 15th March 2022 and 11th May 2022 passed in relation to the instant application. But, before that, a brief introduction of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13094/2019 Page 1 of 7 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.08.2022 20:15:56 facts. Petitioner No. 1-Mr. Vedansh Pandey, has contended that he is deliberately not being assessed in the practical/internal assessments in the subjects - 'Moot Court' for the fifth semester, and 'ADR' for the sixth semester - for academic session 2020-21. He also alleges discrimination on the ground that assessments of other similarly placed students were being conducted and he is being singled out. He emphasizes that no separate classes are held for practical assessments, only assignments are required, which could be submitted on the day of the practical examination itself.
2. University of Delhi [Respondent No. 3] controverts the submissions and contends that the Petitioner No.1 did not submit any assignments for the said subjects, on a regular basis, and hence, cannot be permitted to sit for the final practical exams of the same. In relation to exams being conducted for similarly placed students, it is explained that the same was for certain students of Campus Law Centre whose 'span' period, i.e., the maximum time period within which the course must be completed, was ending in the academic session 2020-21, whereas Petitioner No.1's span period was ending in 2022- 23 and accordingly, parity cannot be claimed.
3. In the above circumstances, vide order dated 11th May 2022 of this Court, University of Delhi was directed to file an affidavit of the Professor/Assistant Professor dealing with the said subjects to confirm that only students who submit their assignments on a regular basis are permitted to appear in the practicals.
4. In terms of the above directions, affidavit dated 19th May 2022 filed by Mrs. Sunanda Bharati (Associate Professor), for the 'ADR' course and affidavit dated 20th May 2022 filed by Mr. Alok Sharma (Associate Professor) for the 'Moot Court' course, have been perused. Per the affidavit filed by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13094/2019 Page 2 of 7 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.08.2022 20:15:56 Mrs. Sunanda Bharati, the 'ADR' course involved an internal assessment assignment, based on activities conducted by the faculty in the classroom during the course of the semester, and discussions on modules viz. negotiation, mediation, arbitration, etc., along with an end-semester exam. It appears Petitioner No. 1 failed to submit the single written internal assignment by the prescribed deadline. As per the affidavit filed by Mr. Alok Sharma, it has been categorically stated that for the purpose of internal assessment in the 'Moot Court' course, a student has to attend classes and participate in the internal assessment activities that are conducted intermittently during the semester, as and when explanatory discussions on certain components viz., Mock Trial, Moot Court etc. were completed as per the scheme or examination/ assessment. It appears that Petitioner No. 1 did not appear in the oral presentations and even failed to submit all assignments except for one assignment per the prescribed curriculum.
5. That said, Petitioner No. 1 has sought reliefs in the present application which are beyond the scope of the writ petition, as elaborated in the paragraphs below.
6. In the writ petition, the reliefs sought are as follows:
"(1) Direct Respondent No. 3, 4 & 5 to quash the notification 'Date-Sheet for LL.B. 1/111/V Term Examinations, December 2019' bearing number -
Exam. VII/ DS-43/19 issued by Respondent No. 4 on 11/11/2019.
(2) Initiate a judicial enquiry into the instances of nepotism, falling standards of legal education and flagrant disregard for the law prevalent in the Faculty of Law.
(3) Direct Respondent No.2 to conduct immediate inspection of Faculty of Law under the watch of this court and prepare an inspection report in consonance with Rules of Legal Education - 2008 to ensure that the Respondent No.5 is complying with the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in India as per section 49 (1) (d) of The Advocates Act, 1961.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13094/2019 Page 3 of 7 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.08.2022 20:15:56(4) Direct the formation of independent committee consisting of legal luminaries and representatives of Respondent No.1, 2 & 6 to draft and publish detailed rules laying down procedure of paper setting and evaluation of answer scripts of students of Faculty of Law clearly laying down procedure of revaluation, qualification of evaluators, and preparation of model answer keys among other necessary rules to ensure fairer and more consistent evaluation process.
(5) Direct the Respondent No. 3, 4 & 5 to allow revaluation of answer scripts of all aggrieved students for semester end examinations as a matter of right.
(6) Direct Respondent No. 5 for the immediate preparation of model answer keys for aiding the examiners in the evaluation of answer sheets of semester/term-end examination and fair academic evaluation of students.
(7) Direct Respondent No.5 to implement the recommendations suggested in the report titled 'Evaluation Reforms in Higher Educational Institutions in India' prepared by Respondent No. 6 as an interim measure until detailed rules for paper setting and evaluation is framed by the Respondent No.5.
(8) Direct the Respondent No. 3 to provide the Petitioner No.1 with photocopies of his answer script of semester end examination conducted in the month of May-June 2019.
(9) Direct the Respondent No.4 to comply with the provisions of RTI Act and the directions of Respondent No3 and share data regarding the grievances/complaints filed with the University of Delhi in relation to evaluation of answer script and paper setting including volume of grievances, rate of disposal of grievances, the pendency of grievances etc."
7. In contrast to the above prayers, the present application seeks the following reliefs:
"(1) Direct Respondent No.3 to conduct administrative inquiry into the illegal activities of Respondent No.5 and initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No.5.
(2) Direct Respondent No.3 to remove Respondent No.5 from her current position (as the Dean, Faculty of Law) as she can adversely affect the administrative inquiry / disciplinary proceedings by manipulating /destroying the evidence against her.
(3) Direct Respondent No.3 to conduct the remaining examination of Petitioner No.1 in a just, fair and equitable manner and provide him restitution.
(4) Direct Respondent No.3 to provide adequate compensation to Petitioner No.1 for grave violation of his fundamental rights. (5) List the original Writ Petition and all the miscellaneous application filed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13094/2019 Page 4 of 7 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.08.2022 20:15:56 for hearing at the earliest."
8. Mr. Pandey, who appears in person, states that the afore-noted prayers (1) and (2) of the present application, were directed specifically towards one Prof. (Dr.) Vandana, the then incumbent Dean of the Faculty of Law. However, in view of intervening facts, the afore-noted prayers are rendered infructuous as she is no longer holding the said position.
9. With respect to prayer (3) of the present application for directing Respondent No. 3-University of Delhi to conduct the remaining examinations of Petitioner No. 1, the Court does not find any correlation between the said relief and the prayers sought in the main writ petition extracted above. Mr. Pandey, however, insists that said relief is related to prayer (2) of the writ petition, whereby Petitioner is seeking judicial inquiry into nepotism, the falling standards of legal education and flagrant disregard for the law prevalent in the Faculty of Law. This submission is not convincing as, firstly, prayer (2) in the writ petition is completely vague and unspecific, and secondly, the interim relief is beyond the scope of the writ petition.
10. Dismissed.
W.P.(C) 13094/2019
11. Petitioners' primary grievance pertains to lack of policies for re- evaluation and the non-provision of model answer keys to students for any of the examinations at the Faculty of Law.
12. During the course of the submissions, Mr. Mohinder J. S. Rupal, counsel for University of Delhi, has handed over a document comprising of the policies of University of Delhi in relation to the moderation of evaluation and re-evaluation. The Court has perused the counter-affidavit on record, and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13094/2019 Page 5 of 7 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.08.2022 20:15:56 finding the same to be inadequate in terms of the issues raised relating to re- evaluation, model answer keys and moderation of evaluation, University of Delhi is directed to file a further affidavit, placing on record the relevant policies/rules and regulations for the same, along with an explanation as to why a re-valuation is not permitted in the LL.B. course. The said affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks from today.
13. Petitioners also contend that there is no clarity on whether the Bar Council of India ['BCI'] has perused/approved the rules of evaluation/ re- evaluation framed by Faculty of Law. Mr. Preet Pal Singh, counsel for Respondent No. 2-BCI, is also directed to file an affidavit regarding the rules of evaluation/ re-evaluation furnished by Faculty of Law to BCI, within a period of three weeks from today.
14. Petitioners have also relied on an order passed by Central Information Commission ['CIC'] in H. N. Pathak v. PIO, BCI,1 which deals with the publication of inspection reports by BCI. Placing reliance thereon, it is submitted that the report of the inspection carried out pursuant to the order dated 02nd March, 2020 of this Court, should be made available in the public domain. On this aspect, Mr. Singh submits that he will examine the issue and take appropriate steps.
15. In the event BCI takes a view that in light of the afore-said order of CIC, the inspection reports are required to be published, BCI should proceed to do so without awaiting further orders of this Court.
16. Parties are directed to file their brief written submissions, not exceeding five pages, along with relevant case law(s), within four weeks from today.
1Order dated 02nd January, 2017 in Complaint No. CIC/SA/C/2016/000164.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13094/2019 Page 6 of 7 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.08.2022 20:15:5617. BCI is directed to also place the relevant inspection report on record, prepared pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02nd March 2020, within four weeks from today.
18. Re-notify on 12th September, 2022.
SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 5, 2022 d.negi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13094/2019 Page 7 of 7 By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.08.2022 20:15:56