Dismissed

Azad @ Azad Mohammad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2021WRIC/1750/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the Respondents to decide his representation for an LL.B. degree. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing the University's Examination Controller to decide the representation via a reasoned order within eight weeks. The petitioner must file a fresh representation; the Court did not adjudicate eligibility merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Examination Controller to decide the petitioner's representation within eight weeks of receiving a fresh representation.

Azad @ Azad Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1750 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Azad @ Azad Mohammad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahnawaz Akhtar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3/University.

¶6

By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks for following relief:-

¶7

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by directing the Respondents to decide the Representation dated 14.12.2020 of the Petition. "

¶8

This Court on 19.3.2021 had passed the following order:-

¶9

"Heard Sri Shahnawaz Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the University.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has completed LL.B. Course by appearing in last semester which he has also cleared successfully.

¶11

Learned counsel for the University states that under the Rules, LL.B. has to be completed within a period of six years but it is not denied that the petitioner has been permitted to appear in the last semester examination interfacing with the maximum period of years prescribed under the Rules.

¶12

In such above special circumstances therefore, this Court does not found any good ground to permit the University to withhold the marksheet and degree of the LL.B. Course of the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the University is directed to produce before this Court, LL.B. marksheet of the petitioner of the last semester on the next date fixed and obtain instruction by the next date fixed.

¶14

Put up on 05.04.2021, as fresh."

¶15

The respondents/University has filed an application on 24.6.2021 for recall of the aforesaid order stating that the petitioner had taken admission in LL.B course (2013-14) in an affiliated college, namely, Bankey Bihari College of Law, Ujhani, Budaun. The result of the petitioner was not declared by the University, for the reason that a student is required to complete the course in six years, but the petitioner could not complete the LL.B course by 2018-19. The petitioner, however,

¶16

filled up a form through the aforesaid college in 2020 and appeared for the final semester. While examining the record of the petitioner it transpired that petitioner was not eligible to appear in final semester in 2020 as more than six years had lapsed. Accordingly, his result was not declared.

¶17

Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to enter into the eligibility of the petitioner, in first instance.

¶18

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent i.e. Examination Controller, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the relevant rules. The petitioner shall file a representation along with a copy of the writ petition before the respondent No.3 within three weeks from today. In the event such a representation is filed, it is expected that the third respondent shall consider and decide the same within next eight weeks.

¶19

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it is for the third respondent to consider all aspects of the matter and take a decision in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.7.2021 Rakesh

Azad @ Azad Mohammad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azad @ Azad Mohammad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Khairun Nisha Vs Ram Ashre Rai, Collector/D.D.C.

Meena Chabra and 2 Others Vs Bhupendra Singh and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Vs Pradeep Kohli and Another

Smt. Kanti Devi and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Hardevi and 2 Others Vs Commissioner and 9 Others

Jyoti Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others