RITHAMBHRA GARG Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct the supplementary examination for the fifth semester at an early date and allow the petitioner to appear in the examination. As per the petition, the petitioner was granted admission in B.Sc. (Hons.), Biomedical Science course in Shaheed Rajguru College of Applied Sciences for Women in the year 2010. The said course is divided into six semesters -two semesters in each year. The Course is to be completed in the year 2013. The petitioner passed all her examinations till the fourth semesters. In the fifth semester she cleared all her papers except Pharmacology (Code 258501), which she could not clear. According to the petition, the petitioner could not clear this paper as she was preparing for other entrance examinations. The petitioner appeared in the CAT examination on 29.10.2012, which coincided with the fifth semester examination. The petitioner secured a good rank in the CAT examination i.e. 90.42% and she was hopeful to get admission in a Government run management institute.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the University has fixed arbitrary rules of admission/examination of this particular course according to which a student having essential reappear in the first, third and fifth semesters has to appear in October/November. Counsel further submits that while no prejudice would be caused to a student of the first and third semesters but it would cause serious prejudice to the rights of a student of the fifth and sixth semesters as considerable time is lost in waiting to appear for the examination in the month of October/November. It is further submitted that the petitioner vide communication dated 29.12.2010 approached the Vice -Chancellor requesting him for considering her case and for conducting examination early instead of October/November. In the communication dated 29.12.2012 the petitioner also requested the Vice -Chancellor to arrange for a re -test in the month of June or even earlier instead of the scheduled dates in the month of November/December. She also explained that she would lose her college placement on account of the delay. It is also contended that the Rule which has put the future of the petitioner into jeopardy is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this petition on the ground that the examinations are conducted as per the guidelines which have been laid down. Counsel further submits that at the time when the petitioner took admission she was well aware of the guidelines and at this stage she is estopped from raising any objection. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the guidelines, relevant portion of which read as under:

(3.) ...