SHABNAM ARA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that she was admitted into the three year LLB course in the University of Kota (hereinafter 'the University') in the academic year 2008 -09 and passed the first year examination on 04.12.2009. Thereafter (for reasons which are not set out in the writ petition) she let go three academic years i.e. 2009 -10, 2010 -11 and 2011 -12 and wrote the second year examination of three year LLB course in the academic year 2012 -13, result whereof was declared on 29.08.2013. Therein the petitioner was found to have failed in one paper i.e. Company Law. The supplementary examination for back papers of second year LLB three year course were held in October, 2013 but the petitioner as per her own admission did not write the said examination as she states that she collected the mark -sheet from the college only on or about 7th November, 2013. The petitioner then represented to the University to allow her to write the supplementary examination in the subject of Company Law pertaining to second year LLB course. Having elicited no response, she first approached this Court in writ petition No.3768/2014. However, during the course of arguments, it appears that the counsel for the petitioner abandoned the said writ petition on merits and sought liberty of the Court to make a representation to the University, to allow her to write the second year supplementary examination in the subject of Company Law which she had missed out for reasons of her own making in October, 2013. Then in pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court the petitioner made a representation afresh on 19.05.2014 to the University demanding that either she be allowed to appear in the supplementary examination pertaining to back paper of Company Law in second year LLB course or that she be allowed to appear in third year LLB examination which was to be held in 2014 under the old scheme along with the back paper of Company Law in issue. In the meantime, the petitioner availed the option presented by the University to be inducted into the IIIrd semester of the the third year law course (new scheme) which had commenced in 2013 and was admitted thereto. The writ petition does not state the date of the petitioner's admission into the IIIrd semester under the new scheme of the Three Year Law Degree course of the University. But as per the petitioner's own say (para 7 of the writ petition) prior to filing of the writ petition, she had deposited the examination form and fee for writing the IIIrd semester examination of the 3rd year Law Course (new scheme), quite obviously after attending the requisite number of class and having the mandated percentage of attendance.

(2.) NOW the case of the petitioner in this petition, in the facts detailed herein above, is that the action of the University is illogical, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. It has been submitted that the petitioner ought to have been promoted to the third year LLB course (old scheme) despite having one back paper (company law) in the second year. It is submitted that even otherwise the petitioner could not be required to migrate to the new scheme of three year LLB course commencing 2013 after having been admitted under the old scheme in the academic year 2008 -09. The further submission is that in the alternative the petitioner ought to have been admitted into the fifth semester of the three year law course (new scheme) and not the third semester thereof as has been done in her case. It has been finally submitted that in any event as per the ordinances of the University of Rajasthan which ought to apply to the courses under the University for purported reasons of analogy, the petitioner was entitled to three chances for writing the back paper (Company Law) in second year LLB course (old scheme) and having been denied such number of chances, the action of the University in requiring her to take admission into the IIIrd Semester of the 3 year Law Course (New Scheme) is wholly illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. In these circumstances, it has been prayed that the petitioner be allowed to appear in the third year law examination under the old scheme along with the due paper of Company Law pertaining to the second year LLB or in the alternative to be admitted to the Vth semester of the 3 year Law Course (New Scheme).

(3.) THE petition was filed on 23.11.2014, but the matter was listed and came up before this Court on an application for early hearing on 20.01.2015. The application for early hearing was allowed for reason of urgency expressed. Notices were issued to the respondents on the same day and the petitioner was directed to supply a copy of the petition in view of the urgency of the case to Ms. Anita Agarwal, Advocate who had earlier appeared in cases for the University. Thereafter the matter was taken up today i.e. on 23.01.2015.