PIYUSH GUPTA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a student for the Degree of Bachelor of Business Studies (B.B.S.) in the College of Business Studies, Jhilmil Colony, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. The Bachelor of Business Studies is a three-years course consisting of six semesters with examinations at the end of each semester. The petitioner was admitted to the course in July, 1995. He appeared in the examination conducted at the end of the first semester in November-December, 1995 and passed in 4 out of 5 papers. He failed in Paper No. 3-Micro Economics & its Applications. However, he was promoted to the second semester became a student who passed in 4 out of 5 papers was eligible for promotion as per the rules. The petitioner appeared in the examination at the end of the second semester in April-May, 1996. When the results were declared the petitioner was shown as failed since he did not secure a minimum of 50% marks in both the semesters together as required under the Bachelor of Business Studies (B.B.S.) Ordinance issued in May, 1996 by respondent No. 1, University of Delhi. However, in view of representations made by students like the petitioner, the students of 1995 batch were exempted from the requirement of a minimum of 50% marks in both the semesters together. Accordingly the petitioner was declared to have passed in all the 5 papers of the second semester and he stood promoted to the third semester. The petitioner appeared in the third semester examination in November-December, 1996. He also re-appeared in the examination in Paper No. 3 of the first semester held in January, 1997. The results of the third semester examination held in November-December, 1996 were declared only on 11th March, 1997 and the petitioner was declared to have tailed in the 3rd semester though he had secured more than 40% marks in 4 out of 5 papers. The petitioner was declared unsuccessful also in the examination in paper No. 3 of the first semester. Even though the petitioner had been attending the fourth semester classes from January 1997, he was not allowed to attend the fourth semester classes after the declaration of the results of the 3rd semester examination and the examination in paper No. 3 of the first semester. The petitioner was not allowed to continue the course apparently on the ground that he did not pass in paper No. 3 of the first semester even in the second attempt. According to respondent No. 3, a student was not entitled to appear in more than two chances. The petitioner applied for revaluation of the answer sheets of paper No. 3 of first semester and pending revaluation he was allowed to continue to attend the fourth semester classes and he Was allowed to deposit examination fee for the fourth semester examination scheduled to be he'd in May, 1997. But on 7th May, 1997, the petitioner was told that he was not eligible to appear in the 4th semester examination starting on 8th May, 1997 and he was not allowed to appear in the said examination. The petitioner could not seek any remedy against it since the refusal to permit him to appear in the examination was conveyed to him only at the last minute. According to the petitioner, the result of revaluation has not been communicated to him. Though the petitioner wanted to reappear in the examination in paper No. 3 of the first semester scheduled to be held in October/November, 1997 as an ex-student, respondent No. 3, the Principal of the College, told the petitioner that he would not allow him to appear in the said examination even as an ex student. In such circumstances the petitioner filed this writ petition in November, 1997 challenging the Bachelor of Business Studies Ordinance based on which the petitioner was denied permission to reappear in the examination in paper No. 3 of the first semester. He has also prayed for directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to attend classes on regular basis for completion of the B.B.S. Course.

(2.) By an interim order dated 25th November, 1997 this Court permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination in paper No. 3 of the first semester held in November-December, 1997. The Court has recorded the statement of the learned Counset for the petitioner that the petitioner would not claim any special equities arising from the permission to take the examination. By the said order dated 25th November, 1997 the respondents were also directed to withhold the result of the petitioner and to make it available to the Court in a sealed cover. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the examination and the result was communicated to this Court in a sealed cover on 27th March, 1998. It was found that the petitioner had passed in the examination.

(3.) The following issues arise for consideration in this case :