Gujarat High Court
Pandit Krushnaben Jagdeep vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 20 January, 2016
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/15352/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15352 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
PANDIT KRUSHNABEN JAGDEEP....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
PARTY-IN-PERSON, PERSONAL CAPACITY for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL,ASSTT GOVT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DIPEN DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3 , 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 20/01/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This matter is heard for final disposal with consent of learned advocates for the parties.
2. The petitioner who is a student of M.E. (Biomedical Engineering) has come with the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction against the respondents to Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Fri Jan 22 02:21:47 IST 2016 C/SCA/15352/2015 JUDGMENT file application form for appearance in all examinations till she clears only one subject backlog at M.E. Biomedical Engineering Course to get requisite degree.
3. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4, it is mainly pointed out that the validity of the enrollment of the students shall be double the duration of a particular course. In the present case, the petitioner is pursuing M.E. Course, which is of two years. The petitioner was admitted in the year 2010. Term of the course expired in the year 2012. However, further extension of two years is permissible as per the notification dated 13.4.2012 and therefore, maximum validity period was of four years. The petitioner on completion of two years could not clear the backlog and even in extended period of two years, the petitioner could not clear the backlog.
4. On 7.10.2015, the Court passed following order in the present petition:-
1. During the course of hearing, the order dated 21.04.2015, passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.477 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No.18022 of 2014, has been brought to the notice of this Court, wherein the Circular dated 05.09.2014, was at issue. In that case as well, the appellants therein were not permitted further chances for appearing in the examination. In this context, the Division Bench observed as under:
7. Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the University after getting instructions from the Vice Chancellor, has left the matter to the Court. In our view, when the matter pertains to the career of the students, the University could have given opportunity to all the students including the appellant herein. No material is brought to our notice for any exercise undertaken to deprive the students who had already made attempt earlier. Under the circumstances, we find it appropriate to observe and to direct the University to extend the benefit of circular dated 05.09.2014 to the petitioners on payment of necessary fees.Page 2 of 5
HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Fri Jan 22 02:21:47 IST 2016 C/SCA/15352/2015 JUDGMENT
8. It has been stated that the form has already been filed with the college and the fees are already paid and the exam is already scheduled on 28/04/2015. Hence it is directed that the University shall complete necessary formalities at the earliest so as to enable the appellant to appear at the next ensuing exam. The order passed by the learned single judge is set aside. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
2. Another judgment dated 17.07.2015, rendered by this Court (Coram: Honble Mr.Justice R.M.Chhaya) in Special Civil Application No.9314 of 2015, has been brought to the notice of this Court, wherein this Court observed as below:
6. Upon examining the factual background of this matter, it clearly transpires that the petitioners of this petition are similarly situated to the appellants/ petitioners of Letters Patent Appeal No.477 of 2015 and therefore, similar treatment needs to be given to the present petitioners also. In the instant case also, the policy declaration of the University by way of circular dated 5.9.2014 was made known to the petitioners for the first time and in fact, the petitioners are students who could not clear the examination prior to the circular and there is no express bar provided in the said circular, as observed by the Honble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.477 of 2015. Even in this case also, keeping in mind the career of the students, this Court is of the opinion that the University could have given opportunity to the present petitioners also.
7. In light of the aforesaid therefore, the respondent -
University shall take appropriate decision in case of the present petitioners, keeping in mind the directions that are issued by the Honble Division Bench and the respondent University shall complete necessary formalities well in advance before the next/ ensuing examination to be held in the later part of 2015. It goes without saying that the students shall complete all necessary formalities as directed by the respondent University within the prescribed time.
3. Having heard the Party-in-Person, Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Dipen A.Desai, learned advocate for respondents Nos.3 and 4, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the University to consider the case of the petitioner in a similar fashion.
Page 3 of 5
HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Fri Jan 22 02:21:47 IST 2016
C/SCA/15352/2015 JUDGMENT
4. Hence, the following order is passed:
Respondent No.3 Gujarat Technological University shall take an appropriate decision in the case of the Party-in-Person, keeping in mind the directions issued by the Division Bench in the order dated 21.04.2015, in Letters Patent Appeal No.477 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No.18022 of 2014.
The University shall consider whether the formalities can be completed well-in-advance before the next ensuing examination, to be held in the month of December, 2015, and whether the Party-in-Person can be permitted to appear in the said examination, which would be in consonance with the directions of the Division Bench referred to above.
The learned counsel for the respondent-University shall intimate the Court regarding the decision of the University on, or before, the next date of hearing.
5. List the matter on 03.11.2015.
6. The Party-in-Person is present and has been apprised of the next date of hearing.
5. It is pointed out that the University has not considered the case of the petitioner on the ground that validity of the course had expired for the purpose of clearing the backlogs.
6. The petitioner who appeared as party-in-person pointed out that out of two subjects, she could clear the examination for one subject and backlog remained only for one subject, i.e. Advance Biomedical Imagine.
7. It appears that applying later circular dated 5.9.2014, the petitioner is denied the right to clear backlog by unlimited attempts to appear in the examination. The petitioner submitted that no limit would be applicable to her case as she was enrolled as a student before 2014.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Desai and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Raval could not dispute that when the petitioner was enrolled as a student, there was no limit to take attempts for Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Fri Jan 22 02:21:47 IST 2016 C/SCA/15352/2015 JUDGMENT examination to clear backlogs.
9. The Court however, on the facts of the case finds that the petitioner is now at a stage where she is required to clear backlog for only one subject. Mr. Desai could not dispute that the petitioner has already cleared backlog of one subject out of two subjects for which she was claiming for more attempts to appear in the examination. In such view of the matter, the Court is of the view that the University could have taken sympathetic view of the matter, especially when the question is about the career of a student. It is pertinent to note that if the petitioner clears examination for the remaining subject, which is termed as backlog, she would get degree for the above-referred course. In such view of the matter, to see that the career of a student is not ruined just on account of not permitting her to appear in the examination for clearing the backlog of only one subject, the Court deems it proper to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondent No.5 to accept the application form of the petitioner for the purpose of appearing in the examination for remaining one subject and to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination for the above-said subject by taking necessary and required steps for such purpose.
10. In view of above, the petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.5 to accept the application form of the petitioner for the purpose of appearing in the examination for the above-said subject and to send such application to respondent No.4, which shall be accepted by respondent No.4, and the petitioner shall be permitted to appear in the ensuing examination for the said subject.
Direct Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(C.L.SONI, J.) Omkar Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Fri Jan 22 02:21:47 IST 2016