MALVIKA SINGH Vs. CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 to 4. Through this writ application petitioner seeks following reliefs:--

(2.) It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the Chanakya Law University, Patna has been established under the CNLU Act, 2006 and it is financially supported by the Government and the University Grants Commission. The petitioner was admitted in CNLU, Patna on the basis of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)/NRI sponsorship in the year 2009 for the five years B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) Course of batch 2009-14. It is claimed that she has regularly attended her classes and also regularly appeared at the examination from 1st semester to the 8th semester and cleared all the papers except Corporate Law-1, Environmental Law and Corporate Law-2 in the 7th and 8th semester respectively. It is submitted that though the CNLU Act, 2006 does not provide detention of students for failure in any papers, surprisingly, the petitioner has been detained. It is further stated that Section 30 of the CNLU Act, 2006, inter alia provides that any punitive measure against any student cannot be imposed without granting a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken and as such the detention of the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that, in the absence of any policy or promotional scheme, the policies of other Law Universities should be adopted and in above view of the matter, since the petitioner has failed to clear three subjects but less than four subjects, she should be allowed to be promoted in the 9th semester and should be allowed to appear in the repeat examination for clearing the backlog papers. Learned counsel has submitted that several other students have been given such opportunity and after promotion they have cleared their backlog but the petitioner has been detained.

(3.) However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the Regulation of Chanakya National Law University came into force from the Session 2006-07 itself. It is stated that initially it was provided in the promotion scheme that no student would be promoted to 3rd year without passing all the 1st year courses. However, subsequently the Examination Regulation was amended and it was specifically incorporated that for promotion to the next higher classes a candidate must not fail in more than two courses. A copy of the Regulation and the amendment has been appended as Annexures-A and A/1. It has further been stated that by Annexure-B dated 29.11.2010 it was already clarified that under the academic regulation and promotional scheme no candidate would be promoted to next higher class unless he/she has completed all the courses in a given year. However, a student who has failed in not more than two courses may be promoted to the next higher class. Subsequently, vide notification contained in letter no. 1743 dated 9.2.2011 (Annexure-B/ 1) it was informed to all the students well in advance that a student who has failed in not more than two courses in a year may be promoted to next higher class. It has further been stated that the University has acted upon the detention and promotion scheme and students, who failed in more than two courses, have been detained. Reference has been made to certain students in this regard in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit. It has been stated that the University has published the list of detained students which includes the petitioner as well as others on the ground that they have failed in more than two papers in a year. It has further been stated that, in order to provide opportunity to improve results, students were allowed to appear in the repeat examination, thereafter, the University even provided opportunity of re-evaluation by two independent examiners outside the University for credibility and transparency. The petitioner availed the opportunity of repeat examination and also re-evaluation. However, the petitioner at her own will absented in the examination and she had to be detained in 4th year. It has been stated in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit that the University has acted uniformly and without any bias, ill will or discrimination.