Manisha Mahobiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

For Petitioners : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Adv. General For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶16

C.A.V. ORDER

¶17

Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.

¶18

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to declare the result of LL.M. third semester, Dec-Jan 2023-24 of the petitioners.

¶19

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give admission in final Semester of LL.M. which is LL.M.-Fourth Semester, for which the admissions have been started after the declaration of result of LLM-Third Semester.

¶20

10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶21

Brief facts which led to filing of this writ petition are that petitioners are

¶22

2

¶23

students of LL.M. course and are pursuing their studies from Respondent no. 4/ College. Petitioners appeared in Second Semester examination and results of which were declared on 19.08.2023. Petitioners got ATKT, as both of them secured less than 50 marks in Indian Administrative Law subject. They took admission in LL.M. Third Semester on 22.08.2023 and 25.08.2023 respectively. They also submitted their examination Form, pursuant to which they were issued Admit Card to appear in the Third-Semester and they have also participated in the examination. Petitioners also submitted their examination Form for ATKT subject ie., Indian Administrative Law and for that also they were issued Admit Card. In the ATKT subject, petitioners became successful and accordingly results were declared on 15.03.2024 as ‘Passed’, however, results of the Third Semester in which petitioners appeared were not declared. They approached the authorities and have also submitted representations, however, the representations were not considered by Respondents No. 3 and 4, aggrieved by which petitioners have filed this writ petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioners after declaration of results of second semester showing that they have received ATKT in one subject ie., Indian Administrative Law and as per the rules of admission to get themselves admitted in the next semester, immediately after declaration of results of earlier semester they submitted their application Form for admission as also deposited requisite fee. Petitioners continuously attended classes of second semester, submitted their examination Form, concerned authority also issued Admit card and they appeared in the examination, however, when the results of third semester were declared the results of the petitioners were withheld and was not visible in the online portal. Later, the petitioners were informed by the respondent-College that they were not eligible to take admission in third semester and also to appear in the

¶25

3

¶26

examination because they have not cleared second semester on the date of admission. The information supplied by the respondents to the petitioners is per se arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the regulations of the University. He contended that as the admissions norms provides for their admission in next semester with ATKT, Respondent No. 4 admitted them, petitioners have attended lectures and classes of third semester, participated in the examination and therefore, direction be issued to respondents to declare their results.

¶27

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 would submit that the Respondent No. 4 is affiliated with Respondent No. 3 and it is governed by Ordinance of Respondent No. 3/ University for courses and examination. According to the Ordinance of the University, the students only after clearing first and second semesters become entitle and eligible for his/her admission in the third semester. Petitioners got ATKT (backlog) in one subject in second semester and therefore they were not eligible for their admission in third semester. However, conditional provisional admission was granted to them subject to clearing all the subjects of second semester. In the affidavit dated 06.05.2024, it is clearly mentioned that the admission to the petitioners were given as petitioners made repeated request for giving provisional admission according to the college norms by stating that they were going to submit an application for retotaling of the marks of the subject in which they got ATKT before the University and they were having full hope for increase in the marks and if they do not succeed inadvertently they will surrender their provisional admission in third semester. He submits that at the time of admission, in the admission Form, there is specific mention of “Temporary Admission”. As the petitioners on the date of submission of their examination Form have not passed their qualifying examination ie., LL.M. second semester, they were not eligible to submit their examination Form, hence, the petitioners are not entitle for relief as

¶28

4

¶29

prayed for. They cannot take benefit of their own mistake.

¶30

Learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 3/ University would submit that the University has Ordinance on Master of Laws (LL.M.) course which is a Two-Year academic course of four semesters. Referring to the clauses under the Ordinance, he submitted that no student is allowed for regular admission in third semester until he/she clears all the paper of first and second semester. As the petitioners have not passed/ cleared all the subject of first and second semester on the date of admission, they were not eligible for regular admission and to submit their examination Form, hence, there is no error on the part of respondents in not declaring the results of petitioners.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record.

¶32

Copy of Ordinance is placed on record as Annexure R-2/1 is not disputed by the counsel for petitioner. It is under the head of “Ordinance, Master of Laws (LL.M.)”. Under Clause 3(c) of the Ordinance it is mentioned that a candidate having passed LL.M. Second semester examination of this University and has prosecuted a regular course of prescribed study for one Semester in the University Department of Law or a College affiliated to the University shall be eligible to appear at LL.M. Third Semester. Clause 4(a) talks of minimum 75% attendance of the total number of lectures and Seminars held during the Semester session. Ordinance however provides that “in order to declare successful in any of the Semester examination, every candidates have to obtain atleast 40% marks in individual papers and 50% marks in aggregate. Clause 6 of the Ordinance provides that the candidate who is unsuccessful in one paper/ semester in a Semester shall be allowed to take admission in subsequent semester and shall appear in the paper/ subject in which he/ she has been unsuccessful in the previous semester along with all papers of next semester in which he/she is

¶33

5

¶34

admitted on regular basis. Clause 7 provides that a candidate who has secured minimum passing marks in all papers but could not obtain 50% of the total marks will be permitted for next semester, such candidate shall be given option to select any two papers of the concerned semester to make up the short fall of the 50%.

¶35

Learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 & 3 while opposing the prayer made in the writ petition have pressed into Clause 8 of the Ordinance, Annexure R2/1, which provides that “no candidate will be allowed regular admission in the third semester until he/she clears all the paper of first and second semester.” Clause 6 and Clause 8 applies in different fields, clause 6 cannot be read into isolation and to apply for all semesters first to fourth when there is specific clause dealing with the admission in the third semester.

¶36

Admittedly, the petitioners could not clear one subject ie. the Administrative Law in second semester. They participated in the ATKT exam, petitioners knowing well that they could not clear the second semester have submitted the application for admission in the third semester before Respondent no. 4. The submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 4 based on the documents enclosed along with return is that petitioners were granted provisional admission on the submission made by petitioners that they are making attempt for retotalling of the marks, therefore in the record of the college in the admission form submitted by petitioners there is specific mention of “अस्थाई प्रवेश (temporary admission)”. He submitted that in the prospectus of the College in Clause 5 it is provided that the provisional admission can be given to higher class to those students who got supplementary in annual examination subject to the condition that the provisional admission will be made regular after passing the examination on the lower class.

¶37

In the case at hand, during semester period petitioners did not appear in

¶38

6

¶39

any supplementary exam during the session of Third-Semester, petitioners participated in the final examination of Second Semester in Administrative Law and therefore on the date of submission of application Form for sitting in the examination petitioners have not passed second semester and hence, petitioners were not eligible to submit examination Form for appearing in the Third-Semester exam. From the clauses of the Ordinance, it is very clear that the students who failed to clear first and second semesters will not be allowed regular admission and therefore no relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted. One more important fact which is relevant in view of the grievance raised by the petitioners is that it appears that petitioners while filling of examination Form have not disclosed correct facts in their Form. The copy of application Form submitted by petitioners with University would show that in column No. 16 the information supplied by petitioners is that “they passed last year from Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidhyala, Durg” which in fact is not correct as the petitioners got ATKT in one subject ie. Administrative Law. Had the petitioners disclosed correct fact, their application Form for sitting in final examination of Third-Semester might have been rejected.

¶40

In the above facts of the case, it cannot be said that there is any arbitrariness on the pat of Respondents No. 2 and 3 in not declaring the results or their act is in any manner in contravention of any clauses of the Ordinance.

¶41

The decision which is relied upon by the counsel for petitioners in the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur¹ and University of Delhi vs. Ashok Kumar Chopra and another² are on different facts and not applicable to the facts of present case.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . However, in the facts of the case where Respondent No. 4 has given admission to the petitioners,

¶43

2 AIR 1968 DELHI 131

¶44

1 1989 (1) SCC 399

¶45

7

¶46

accepted their fees of Rs. 15,200/- each from both the petitioners, Respondent No. 4 is directed to give admission to the petitioners in the upcoming third semester without charging fees, adjusting the fees paid by petitioners for third semester on 22.08.2023 and 25.08.2023, subject to fulfilling all the other criteria and norms to the admission.

¶47

. Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶48

/pwn

Manisha Mahobiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Mahobiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sail Refractory Unit Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer

Ali Raza Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikrant Carrier Vs Chhattisgarh Police Housing Corporation Limited

Dudhnath Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Talmale Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh