Dismissed

Aleesha Shereef v. the National University of Advanced Legal Studies

Kerala HC10 Aug 2021WA/414/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal by a hearing-impaired law student against the disposal of her writ petition seeking objective-type question papers, extra time and alternative relief of 25% grace marks. The University had permitted supplementary examinations through project mode and viva. The court found no lapses by the University and held there was no provision for granting grace marks, dismissing the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Aleesha Shereef Vs the National University of… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W.A.No. 414/2021

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

TUESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶9

WA NO. 414 OF 2021

¶10

JUDGMENT DATED 23.06.2021 IN WP(C) 3863/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶11

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):

¶12

ALEESHA SHEREEF, D/O. SHEREEF K., CHARUVIL HOUSE, MASJID ROAD, N.G.O. QUARTERS, KAKKANAD, THRIKKAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 021.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):

¶16

1 THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, NUALS CAMPUS, H.M.T COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683 503.

¶17

2 THE VICE-CHANCELLOR THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, NUALS CAMPUS, H.M.T. COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683 503.

¶18

3 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002.

¶19

4 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT (DIVYANGJAN DEPARTMENT), PT. DEENDAYALANTYODAYABHAVAN, C.G.O COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110 003.

¶20

BY ADV SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC

¶21

R1 & R2 BY SMT. TUSHARA JAMES R3 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC R4 BY SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR, CGC

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.A.No. 414/2021

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2021.

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶28

The appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3863 of 2020 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23.06.2020, whereby the writ petition was disposed of recording that the National University of Advanced Legal Studies—first respondent has taken appropriate action and conducted the further examinations in tune with the provisions contained under the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission by issuing question papers with objective type questions and granting additional time of one hour to the appellant, who is having hearing impairment.

¶29

The University has also assured before court that they will extend all the benefits for which appellant is entitled, in accordance with Ext.P3 guidelines as well as the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, (Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities), dated 29^th August, 2018 as well as the guidelines issued by the UGC while conducting the forthcoming examinations and supplementary examinations. It was also recorded that there is no provision available in the Rule or Regulations, which insist that the grace marks also

¶30

W.A.No. 414/2021 : 3 :

¶31

should be given to the persons with disabilities.

¶32

Insofar as the claim raised by the appellant with respect to the shortage of 5-10 marks in the examinations written by her, the appellant was given opportunity to approach the University with a representation furnishing all the details, and in turn the University was directed to place the representation before the competent body and to take a decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, taking note of the fact that the appellant was denied the benefits which were legitimately due to her. The appellant has also produced additional documents in the writ appeal regarding the submission of project etc., apparently consequent to the action initiated by the University on the representation submitted by the appellant. The appellant has also produced guidelines issued by the University in lieu of the supplementary examinations and in accordance with the request made by her.

¶33

In fact, the paramount contention advanced in the writ petition was that Sections 17(i) and 17(k) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ('Act, 2016' for short) make it imperative to every educational institution and authorities to meet the needs of differently abled students by providing extra time and also to provide such other measures as required to meet the needs of the disabled

¶34

W.A.No. 414/2021 : 4 :

¶35

students. It was also submitted that the Act, 2016 is a beneficial legislation enacted with the above provisions to provide all necessary measures for the welfare and benefit of the disabled persons with the hopeful intention of bringing them to the mainstream and ensuring full participation in the activities of the nation. It was also submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, has issued Ext. P2 office memorandum laying down the guidelines for conducting written examinations for persons with benchmark disabilities. It is evident that clause XVI of Ext. P2 memorandum specifies that alternative objective questions in lieu of descriptive questions should be provided for Hearing-Impaired persons, in addition to the existing policy of giving alternative questions in lieu of questions

¶36

requiring visual inputs for persons with visual impairment. It is also pointed out that the UGC ie., the 3^rd respondent, as per Ext. P3, forwarded Ext. P2 office memorandum for strict compliance to all the Universities. Therefore, by virtue of Exts. P2 and P3, the University was bound to provide alternative objective questions in lieu of descriptive questions to the appellant and other Hearing-impaired students of the University, if any.

¶37

The sum and substance of the contentions advanced is that

¶38

the University has failed to follow the guidelines issued by the

¶39

W.A.No. 414/2021

¶40

: 5 :

¶41

Government of India and the UGC and therefore, the appellant had no other option than to attend all descriptive question papers for all her examinations, which according to the appellant, is per se illegal and unsustainable in law. In the above backdrop, the appellant had sought for the following reliefs in the writ petition:

¶42

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent University to provide objective questions for the petitioner in her forthcoming examinations including supplementary examinations for the following subjects: History, Legal methods, General English, Torts, History of Statutory Presumptions, Public International Law, Sociology, Law of Crimes-II, Legal History, Law of Contracts-I, Jurisprudence, Law of Contracts-II, Transfer of property, Constitution-I, Family-II, Company, Constitution-II, CrimesIII, Information Technology Law, Intellectual property Law, National Security and Counter Terrorism, Taxation, Society Science and Law, Maritime Law, Medical Law and Ethics, Humanitarian and Refuge Law and Comparative Constitutional Rights

¶43

Or in the alternative to provide 25% grace marks for the above subjects in the regular theory examinations already conducted and thereby re-publish her results for the said examinations on the basis of the revised mark, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶44

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent University to provide 20 minutes extra time to the petitioner in all her forthcoming examinations, including supplementary examinations.

¶45

W.A.No. 414/2021

¶46

: 6 :

¶47

The learned single Judge has, in fact, considered the first relief taking into account the adequate steps taken by the University and recorded the same, virtually satisfying the requirement projected by the appellant. As regards the alternative relief in respect of the grace marks, appellant was granted liberty to the appellant to approach the University with suitable representation. The contention that is raised in the appeal is that the appellant was entitled to the relief of directing the first respondent University to provide 25% grace marks for all the subjects in the regular theory examinations already conducted wherein she had failed namely History, Legal methods, General English, Torts, History of Statutory Presumptions, Public International Law, Sociology, Law of Crimes-II, Legal History, Law of Contracts-I, Jurisprudence, Law of Contracts-II, Transfer of property, Constitution-I, Family-II, Company, Constitution-II, Crimes-III, Information Technology Law, Intellectual property Law, National Security and Counter Terrorism, Taxation, Society Science and Law, Maritime Law, Medical Law and Ethics, Humanitarian and Refuge Law and Comparative Constitutional Rights. Therefore, it was submitted that the appellant is entitled to a direction to the University to provide adequate grace marks enabling her to pass examinations with a benchmark limit of 25%.

¶48

W.A.No. 414/2021

¶49

: 7 :

¶50

The University has filed a statement in the appeal basically contending that pursuant to the direction issued by the learned single Judge, the appellant has approached the University as per e-mail dated 04.07.2020 addressed to the Controller of Examinations evident from Annexure R1(a), as per which she has requested for conducting supplementary examinations by submitting projects in lieu of MCQ questions. Thus, according to the University, as on 04.07.2020 the only grievance of the appellant was with regard to the conduct of supplementary examinations through project mode. It is further submitted, the University has responded to the email of the appellant, as per order dated 29.07.2020, taking into account the directions issued by the learned single Judge, whereby it was informed that a Board was constituted for the purpose of conducting the examinations for the appellant through 'project mode'. Thus, the members of the faculty were included in the Board, evident from Annexure R1(b) order dated 29.07.2020.

¶51

Apart from the same, the Controller of Examinations, as per Ext. R1(c) e-mail dated 20.08.2020 informed the appellant that she was permitted to submit projects for 6 subjects in lieu of the supplementary examinations and for the said purpose, guidelines on the date of submission were also attached along with the e-mail. The

¶52

W.A.No. 414/2021 : 8 :

¶53

faculty in charge of each of those subjects were also detailed in the email. According to the University, as per the guidelines, separate statements were to be made as part of the project for synopsis and chapters. The deadline with regard to the date of submission was clearly provided in clause VIII by which, the final project report was to be submitted by 24.12.2020. However, the appellant has not submitted the project as per the timeline prescribed. It is also pointed out that even the date of submission of synopsis was not complied with and there was no interaction by the appellant with any of the faculty assigned to supervise the work as well. It is further submitted that the faculty, in fact, reached out to the appellant asking her to respond to the project work; but, there was no response from the appellant and further that the appellant has not even submitted the synopsis in any of the subjects, except the public International Law.

¶54

The sum and substance of the submission of the University is that despite opportunities being given the appellant, she has failed to make use of the chances to undertake the project mode of examination. In fact, as per Ext. R1(c) e-mail dated 20.08.2020, 4 months' time was given to the appellant and the appellant had never objected to the guidelines or time schedules and never approached the Professors seeking clarifications or extension. It is also the case of the

¶55

W.A.No. 414/2021 : 9 :

¶56

University that even for Public International Law, the appellant had not submitted the final synopsis and despite the concerned faculty asking her to incorporate the corrections, she had not done so. Therefore, according to the University, the appellant is a constant defaulter in the examinations of the University either by her absence or failure, especially due to the fact that various options granted to her by the University with the intention of assisting her were not availed by her. That apart, it is stated that from 24.10.2019, the date on which the appellant filed a complaint, she had 22 papers to clear and in spite of several opportunities available to appear and contest the examinations, she had not cared to do so. Therefore, according to the University, there are no lapses on the part of the University to comply

¶57

with the directions contained in the judgment and the orders/notifications/guidelines issued by the Government of India in regard to the disabled persons and UGC in that regard.

¶58

We have heard, Sri. M.H. Asif Ali for the appellant and Smt. Thushara James, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University and the Vice Chancellor, Sri. S. Krishna Moorthy for the UGC and Sri. K. Raj Kumar for the Government of India, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶59

As we have pointed out earlier, the appellant has, in fact,

¶60

W.A.No. 414/2021 : 10 :

¶61

secured the first relief sought for in the writ petition on the basis of the submissions made by the University before the learned single Judge that it would take adequate steps to provide necessary assistance to the appellant in accordance with the guidelines/ orders issued by the Union of India and the UGC. The basic contention advanced in the appeal was that in spite of the earnest efforts made by the appellant, the respondent University has failed to address the issues raised by the appellant before the University and therefore, the appellant was really aggrieved by the action of the University and thus, in the appeal she is entitled to get a direction to provide grace marks enabling her to pass the examinations participated by her with a benchmark limit of 25%. Though contentions were advanced, relying upon the provisions of Act, 2016, we are of the considered opinion that by virtue of the directions contained in the judgment, the appellant was liable to take adequate steps and co-operate with the University.

¶62

This is a case where the contention of the appellant was that in spite of the earnest efforts made by the appellants, University has failed to conduct examinations following the guidelines issued by the Government of India and the UGC. But, fact remains, the appellant herself has sent Annexure R1(a) e-mail dated 4^th July, 2020 requesting the University to conduct supplementary examinations by

¶63

W.A.No. 414/2021 : 11 :

¶64

submitting projects in lieu of the Multiple Choice Questions in Annexure R1(a) e-mail. It was clearly specified therein by the appellant that she has 24 papers to write and as a student with impairment, it will be very difficult for her to participate in the examination and thereupon, she requested the University to take a better decision. It was in response to the said email dated 4^th July, 2020, the University has issued an order dated 29.07.2020 informing her that sanction has been accorded by the Vice Chancellor in compliance with the direction of the High Court of Kerala to conduct the supplementary examinations through project and viva mode.

¶65

Thereafter, the University has again issued Ext. R1(c) e-mail dated 20^th August, 2020 informing the appellant that she is permitted

¶66

to submit a project for 6 subjects in lieu of the supplementary examination and it is evident from Ext. R1(c) that the guidelines and date for submitting the same was attached. For the sake of convenience, the Guidelines on the Project work in lieu of the supplementary examination issued by the University in favour of the appellant reads thus:

¶67

GUIDELINES ON THE PROJECT WORK IN LIEU OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATION

¶68

1. INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT

¶69

W.A.No. 414/2021

¶70

: 12 :

¶71

This project being in lieu of the supplementary examinations, candidate is expected to approach this project work in all seriousness and with honesty, industry and earnestness. Unlike the research assignments or projects undertaken as part of internal assessment of students, this project work involves serious research and substantial analysis of the topic undertaken. More importantly, the project has to be an ORIGINAL work and that too in a STRUCTURED FORM with certain pre-requisites, which will be detailed below. Students would be well advised to use their analytical and critical skills to the best possible extent in the completion of their respective projects so to make the project as original and productive as possible.

¶72

The project work has TWO components- a written/ typed report and a viva-voce on the report so submitted. The written/ typed report will be marked on 30 marks and the viva-voce will be for 20 marks

¶73

2. SELECTION OF THE PROJECT TOPIC AND APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT TOPIC

¶74

The project work has to be an individual work and not a group effort. Candidate has to undertake a project work on any topic of her/his interest. Such topic has to be related to the subject in question. Candidate has the option to choose the topic by themselves. But such choice SHALL be communicated to the teacher handling the subject and the finalisation of the topic shall be subject to the concerned teacher’s approval. It would be accepted as a valid project topic ONLY after approval by the teacher handling the subject. The teacher’s decision shall be final and binding in this regard.

¶75

If the topic has been rejected, the student will have the opportunity to suggest another topic of her/his choice within a date fixed by the faculty member handling the subject, in this regard.

¶76

Though the initial choice on topics can be made by the students based on their interest, it is always advisable, although not mandatory, that students select topics keeping in mind certain parameters. These parameters among other things, can include the following:

¶77

(1) the significance of the topic

¶78

(2) the multi-dimensional possibilities and application of the topic

¶79

(3) availability of research materials

¶80

(4) the current relevance and future prospects of the topic

¶81

(5) the social or legal perspectives and implications of the topic

¶82

(6) availability of time to complete the project etc.

¶83

The topics ideally should not be too broad or too narrow and should be

¶84

W.A.No. 414/2021

¶85

: 13 :

¶86

focused considering the amount of time that students have at your disposal and other influencing factors. The project topic should be precise. Similarly, the objectives of the project should be realistic, achievable, relevant and time-bound.

¶87

3. SYNOPSIS SUBMISSION

¶88

After the approval of the topic by the faculty member handling the subject, students are required to submit a concise synopsis of the project topic in about three to four pages . The synopsis should contain IN ADDITION to the title of the subject, a brief introduction of the topic and the background of the study, the following aspects under SEPARATE headings:

¶89

objectives and need/purpose of the project (which should be precise, realistic and time- bound)

¶90

the methodology that will be followed (as to whether it is an on-field study or a purely book/article/online database based doctrinal study) 3) the legal and social relevance of the study

¶91

the list of books, journals, articles or online resources referred to for the purpose of choice of topic as also those intended to be used for the commencement of and

¶92

consequential work on the project and

¶93

the expected outcome of the study.

¶94

The synopsis so prepared by the student shall be submitted online EITHER AS SOFT COPY OR AS HAND WRITTEN AND SCANNED COPY in Portable Document Format (PDF), to the faculty member handling the respective subject for her/his approval on or before the date fixed for the same by the University. ONLY on approval of the synopsis shall the student be permitted to continue further work/research on the project. If the synopsis is rejected or sent back to the student for any modification, further work on the project will be possible ONLY after a new synopsis or modified synopsis as the case maybe, is submitted to the faculty member handling the subject and it is consequently approved by her/him within a time frame to be fixed by the University/ faculty member handling the subject. Records of synopsis submission, its acceptance, rejection, suggested modifications re-submissions etc. shall be maintained by the respective faculty member handling the subject.

¶95

The synopses so submitted by the student shall be checked for PLAGARISM and substantially plagiarised synopses (more than 20 %

¶96

W.A.No. 414/2021

¶97

: 14 :

¶98

similarity or less than 80% originality) shall be rejected summarily.

¶99

4. CHAPTERISATION OF THE FINAL WRITTEN PROJECT (REPORT)

¶100

The written submission that comes out as a consequence of research on the project topic (referred to as the report hereinafter) should ideally contain three sections:

¶101

The project’s inception or the Introduction part (a broad introduction of the topic, background of the study and the contents of the synopsis including the project’s objective, purpose, methodology, limitations, expected outcome etc and the literature reviewed)

¶102

The analytical part of the topic (it could be statute, policy or rulebased analysis, case law based analysis or comparative analysis) and

¶103

The findings and conclusions part with the student’s suggestions, if any.

¶104

5. WRITING AND SUBMISSION OF FINAL WRITTEN/ TYPED PROJECT (REPORT)

¶105

The final project report shall be submitted online EITHER AS SOFT COPY OR AS HAND WRITTEN AND SCANNED COPY in Portable Document Format (PDF) , to the Office of the Controller of Examinations on or before the date fixed for the same by the University. The size of the final project report depends to a large extent on the topic selected, but the project report should have a minimum of 25 (twenty five) pages including footnotes, but excluding the covering page, the acknowledgement page, the declaration-of-originality page, table of contents, list of abbreviations, list of cases if any, bibliography and appendices if any. The report SHALL NOT in any case, exceed 35 pages including footnotes, but excluding all the above stated components including appendices.

¶106

Kindly note that the final report, unlike the synopsis is to be submitted to the Office of the Controller of Examinations/ Exam Department and NOT to the faculty member handling the subject

¶107

The candidate is advised to thoroughly go through the literature, understand it and be very clear about the area in which they are going to do the project work. Books, texts, articles, case laws, online research materials etc. can all be referred to / perused for working on and writing the project. But all such references SHALL be acknowledged

¶108

W.A.No. 414/2021

¶109

: 15 :

¶110

properly in the footnotes. Citations are to be part of the foot notes. Similarly, opinions, views, findings and quotations of others (which shall always be enclosed within double quotation marks) also shall be acknowledged in the footnotes.

¶111

SECTION 1 - The first section of the report should focus on a broad introduction of the project topic, background of the study and a comprehensive description of the contents of the synopsis, including the literature reviewed, methodology adopted (book/ article based doctrinal or field-study based non-doctrinal), objective and relevance of the topic, the scope of the study, preexisting limitations of the study, expected outcome of the study etc.

¶112

SECTION 2 - The second section should ideally cover:

¶113

the substantive aspects of the topic- its historical evolution, ingredients, nuances, legal status, social relevance, its scope and need etc.

¶114

an analytical study of the topic in question- instances of its application, judicial and legislative approaches on the topic, recent developments, its effectiveness, need for changes in the existing scheme, identification of maladies associated with the issues covered in the topic, its regional and international implications if any, a critical evaluation of the legislative framework and judicial pronouncements on the topic etc.

¶115

If the student has opted for a comparative study, such comparisons SHALL also be on the same lines as mentioned above. In comparative studies, students shall resort to use of CHARTS OR TABLES so as to highlight such comparisons or differences more effectively.

¶116

The use of diagrammatic / pictorial representations like pie diagrams, bar charts, tables, graphs and statistical data by the student is also highly encouraged wherever necessary, in the writing and completion of the project report.

¶117

SECTION 3 - The third section of the report should focus on the findings of the study which is reached on the basis of the analysis or comparisons made in the previous section. The results of the analysis are to be mentioned here. Other conclusions and suggestions from the side of the students if any, on issues related to the project topic or for rectification or

¶118

W.A.No. 414/2021

¶119

: 16 :

¶120

improvement of existing deficiencies or framework may also be mentioned in this section. It is the implications of the analytical or critical study and possible remedies that should form the basis of this section. Limitations faced during the research or study in arriving at a concrete conclusion may also be mentioned here.

¶121

As mentioned above, the report should have the following components in addition to the three sections mentioned above specifically dealing with the topic. The format and components of the project report are given below for reference:

¶122

Title: The first page of the report should indicate the title of the project, enrolment number or registration number and year.

¶123

Affirmation of originality by the student affirming that it is an original work

¶124

Acknowledgement

¶125

Table of Contents with page numbers

¶126

List of abbreviations, if any

¶127

List of cases, if any

¶128

List of tables, diagrams or charts, if any

¶129

Section 1 (Introductory part of the topic mentioned above)

¶130

Section 2 (Analytical and substantive part of the topic mentioned above)

¶131

(10) Section 3 (Findings, conclusion and suggestions part of the topic mentioned above)

¶132

(11) Bibliography

¶133

(12) Appendix or appendices, if any.

¶134

The written projects or the project reports so submitted by the students shall be checked for PLAGARISM and substantially plagiarised reports (more than 20 % similarity or less than 80% originality) shall be rejected summarily, resulting in failure in the project as well as the subject.

¶135

6. BASIC FORMATTING RULES RELATED TO THE REPORT

¶136

The report as mentioned before shall be submitted online EITHER AS SOFT COPY (TYPED) OR AS HAND WRITTEN AND SCANNED COPY in Portable Document Format (PDF) , to the Office of the Controller of Examinations on or before the date fixed for the same by the University.

¶137

The font followed shall be Times New Roman and the font size throughout the entire report shall be 12 pt. Footnotes shall be in font size 10 pt.

¶138

W.A.No. 414/2021

¶139

: 17 :

¶140

1 (one) inch margins on all sides

¶141

Entire report to be double spaced

¶142

Headings, sub-headings and page numbers are compulsory

¶143

In case of rules specifically not mentioned above, Bluebook, MLA or Chicago formatting styles may be followed, but once chosen, stick to ANY ONE formatting style.

¶144

In the case of citation in footnotes, apart from the above three, ILI citation model may also be followed

¶145

Use of first person in the writing of the report should be avoided.

¶146

7. EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT REPORT

¶147

As mentioned earlier, the project being in lieu of the written examination is valued on 50 marks. The written / typed report carries 30 (thirty)marks and the viva-voce on the report carries 20 (twenty)marks.

¶148

Student should compulsorily complete both the components of the project i.e. submit the project report in the prescribed format AND attend the viva-voce examination on the dates scheduled for them for successful completion of this project in lieu of the written examinations.

¶149

A combined minimum score (both report and viva-voce included) of 20 marks is required to obtain a pass in the project as well as the subject, irrespective of the internal assessment marks of the student. There is a separate minimum of 20 marks for the project component (report and viva-voce combined) considering its significant status as a substitute for the written examinations written examinations

¶150

A student who fails to secure a combined minimum of 20 marks on both the report and the viva-voce together shall be deemed to have failed in the subject and the project, irrespective of whether these marks for the project when added with the internal marks of the student fetches the student 50 % marks or above.

¶151

A student whose report is found to be substantially plagiarised as mentioned above is also considered to be failed in the project as well as the subject, irrespective of the internal assessment marks of the student.

¶152

8. DATES THAT MATTER

¶153

Date for communication of choice project topic by the student 26-08-2020

¶154

Date for intimation by the teacher to the student regarding approval or rejection of

¶155

W.A.No. 414/2021 : 18 :

¶156

the selected topic 28-08-2020

¶157

Date for submission of synopsis by student 11-09-2020

¶158

Date for communication by the teacher on the acceptance, rejection or suggestion regarding modification of the synopsis 18-09-2020

¶159

Last date for submission of new or modified synopsis 25-09-2020

¶160

Date for submission of the final written project (Report) to the Office of the Controller of Examinations 24-12-2020

¶161

Extension of and relaxation on any of the aforementioned dates will not be permitted as a rule and any relaxations/ extensions in exceptional cases shall be at the discretion of the University.”

¶162

Therefore, after having analysed the entire factual and legal situations, we are of the considered opinion that there were no lapses, delay or deliberate omissions on the part of the respondent University in conducting examination as per the requirement of the appellant. It is clear from the guidelines issued by the University extracted above that the University has taken adequate steps to satisfy the requirements of the appellant and assist her in taking the examinations taking into account the hearing impairment faced by the appellant.

¶163

Therefore, the relief sought for, seeking direction to grant grace marks to the appellant in the writ petition as well as in the appeal can never be considered at all, since the appellant herself wanted to participate in the examination through project mode alone,

¶164

W.A.No. 414/2021 : 19 :

¶165

and that there is no provision under any of the Rules or the Regulations or the orders issued by the Government of India or the UGC to grant grace marks in lieu of granting the benefits as per law.

¶166

We are also of the view that in effect the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge has worked out consequent to the representation submitted by the appellant and the University adequately responding to the representation submitted by the appellant addressing the requirements and assistance sought for by the appellant. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the appellant has made out any case for interference in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge there being no jurisdictional error in exercising the discretion or other legal infirmities justifying us to do so.

¶167

Upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶168

sd/- S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶169

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY,

¶170

JUDGE.

¶171

¶172

W.A.No. 414/2021 : 20 :

¶173

APPENDIX OF WA 414/2021

¶174

PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS BEARING NO.1005/S2/19/SCPWD DATED 21.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE STATE COMMISSIONERATE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.NUALS/EXAM/01/LLB/2020-21 DATED 17.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION BEARING NO.A6/2631/2014 DATED 2/2014.

¶175

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶176

/True Copy/

¶177

PS To Judge.

¶178

Aleesha Shereef v. the National University of Advanced Legal Studies

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Aleesha Shereef v. the National University of Advanced Legal Studies

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joby Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Anusree Jayakumar K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Abdullakutty Vs Fathima Suhara.M

Vellangallur Grama Panchayat Vs Lalitha

The Secretary to Government Vs Ibrahim

State Bank of India Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribeemployees Welfare Association Vs the Registrar (Society)