KSHITIJA PURSHOTTAM MHATRE Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL & 1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-student of Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-University) is before this Court being aggrieved by judgement and order dated 20.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition. The learned advocate for the appellant/ original petitioner strenuously argued the matter and tried to convince this Court that the appellant has suffered injustice at the hands of the respondent- University and the learned Single Judge has committed error in not appreciating the same while dismissing the petition. The learned advocate for the appellant/ original petitioner submitted that the appellant before this Court was a 4th Semester student in the respondent-University pursuing B.Tech course. One of the papers in the said course is Structural Analysis, Part-II. In that paper she could not score the qualifying marks at the time of her 4 th Semester. But under the Rules as she was allowed to carry forward the backlog she was allowed to continue her studies with 5th Semester. In 5th Semester there is no Mid-Semester Examination for the subject of 4th Semester, but the student had to appear only at the End-Semester Examination as repeat- examination. The appellant appeared in that examination, but could not score the qualifying marks. Therefore, the appellant failed to clear her backlog of 4th Semester in the aforesaid subject during 5th Semester.

(2.) IT so happened that the result of the appellant for the aforesaid backlog-subject of 4th Semester and other examinations were not available. Therefore, the respondent-University showing indulgence to the appellant-student allowed her to attend class room teaching so that in the event the student passes 5th Semester examination she may not have to lose class room teaching. Unfortunately, the appellant could not clear the said subject of 4 th Semester during her 5th Semester. Therefore, under the Rules she is required to appear Mid-Semester as well End-Semester examination of that subject in the current Semester (6 th Semester) on account of her not being able to clear the backlog for the reason that unless she clears the backlog of 4th Semester she will not be allowed to study 6th Semester.

(3.) TH Semester which she scored while she was in 5 th Semester should be carried forward and she should be allowed to appear in the Mid-Semester examination for that subject while she continues her studies of 6th Semester Examination. This is not permissible under the rules of the respondent-University as submitted by learned senior advocate Mr.Dhaval C. Dave for the respondent- University. The Court cannot grant such relief 4. Besides, learned senior advocate Mr.Dave pointed out certain glaring examples and suppression of material facts on the part of the appellant at the stage of filing petition. One of such suppression of facts is that the respondent-University has addressed an E-Mail to all the students pursuing various courses including the students of 'CV10', which is the course pursued by the appellant herein. The learned advocate for the appellant tried to explain this non- mentioning of this E-mail by saying that there are 'trailing E-Mails' from the respondent-University, therefore, the students could not decide whether this E-Mail is required to be cited in the petition and is required to be placed before the Court. Besides that one of the points which is tried to be urged and pressed into service by the learned advocate for the appellant in the petition is that the respondent-University has collected fee for 6th Semester and now the respondent-University is not allowing the appellant to continue her studies in 6th Semester, which is not proper and there should be a promissory estoppel against the University and the University must allow the appellant to continue her studies in 6th Semester. Learned senior advocate Mr.Dave pointed out from the reply of the University that the University has never collected any fee from the appellant for 6th Semester. It was the appellant-student herself who made payment of fee for 6 th Semester on-line in the Bank Account of the University. There is a difference between 'fee collected' and 'fee paid on-line' in the Account of the University. The Court is of the opinion that there is a deliberate twist of facts on the part of the appellant-student, which is not warranted. Besides that the contention raised by the appellant is that the University having allowed the students to clear backlog of 4 th Semester while doing 5th Semester, now cannot deny to pursue studies in 6th Semester. This contention is without any merit inasmuch as it is specifically mentioned in the Affidavit in Reply filed before the learned Single Judge that it was only with a view to see that the students do not miss their class room teaching they were allowed to attend 6th Semester even while their result was awaited. Any indulgence shown by the University cannot be construed to have conferred a right on the appellant and the appellant cannot invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court complaining breach thereof.