Dismissed

Paranandi Sanjeeva Rao v. The Registrar Osmania University

Telangana HC8 Aug 2023WP/20560/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where a law student sought relaxation of the N+2 course completion rule to clear a backlog subject due to a COVID infection. The Court directed the University authorities to consider the petitioner's representation under UGC guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation regarding backlog exam under UGC guidelines within two weeks. No order as to costs.

Paranandi Sanjeeva Rao Vs The Registrar Osmania… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

l32s2l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITI ON^{NO: 20560OF 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Paranandi sanjeeva^{Rao, S/o Narsaiah Paranandi, Age 30 Yrs, Occ : Student, #62-} bi, lrfrnorrir.s.v.fempte^{Area, IrrlandamarriVillage, Kalyani Khani,Adilabad Dist'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Registrar, Osmania^{University' Hyderabad}

¶12

The Controller^{of Examinations, Osmania UniversityHyderabad'}

¶13

The Principal,^{Dr.B.R.Ambebkar law College,Baglimgampally,Hyderabad-} 500044

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate^{Writ, order or Direction more particularlyin the} nature of writ of^{Mandamus declaringthe action of the respondents in not} allowing the^{petitioner for llYear lV Sem one subject examination with re} admission^{petitioner missed the one subjectdue to corona attack, is against to} the Art. 21 of the^{constitution of India and against to the principlesof natural} justice, consequently direct the respondents^{to allow the petitionerto pay the} exam fee with^{penalityfor the upcoming ll Year lV Sem one subject examination} with Hall ticket^{No.'1 722-17-831-139.}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under section^{151 cPC prayingthat in the (lircumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in supportof thepetitior-r, the High court may be pleasedto} direct the respondents^{to allow the petitionerto pay the exam fee withpenality} for the upcoming ll^{Year lV Sem one subjectexaminaton by allowing into} examinations^{with Hall ticket No. 172? 17-831-139}

¶18

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRI PONAKARAHUL REDDY} Counsel forthe Respondents^{No.1&2:SRI CH.JAGANNATHA RAO,} (SC FOR OSMANIA UNIVERSITY)

¶19

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶20

w-7

¶21

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.20560 0F 2023

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch.Jaganath Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Osmania University appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶24

2, The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows:

¶25

"To issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner for II Year IV Sem one subject examination vvith re admission^petitioner missed the one subject due to Corona attack, is against to the Art.21 oF the constitution of India and against to the principles of natural^justice Consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to pay the exam fee with penalty for the up coming II Year IV Sem one subject examination with Hall ticket No.1722-17-837-L39 and to^pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit^just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

''€"8 +2:.',

sal

The case of the^{petitioner,in brief, is as follows:} a) The^{petitioner appeared for TSLAWCET-2OL7for 3 years} LL.B., and obtained^{rank ll77B and joinecl the 3'd respondent} college. Petitioner^{completedall the subjects as per the} schedule i.e.,^{April 2022, except II year IV Sem one subject} examination with^{Hall ticket No'1722'17-831-f39i'e} ' Interpretation^{of Statutes.}

¶30

b) Due to Coron^{a ?'O2O-2O2|,the petitionercould not pass} the one subject^{till completionof course durationby 2022-} 2023

¶31

c) As^per the^{UGC guidelines the petitionerhas to} complete N+2^{yearsi.e., by 2022-2023, but in August 2023'} the petitioner^{couldnot completethe 1l year IV Semone} subject examination,^{Interpretation of Statute'}

¶32

d) Further the^{2nd respondent issued the Notificationon} 14.07.2023 and^{petitioner'suncompletedsubject} examinationfallson0g.Os.2O23,butwhenthepetitioner approached^{the 3'd respondent to pay the backlog one subject} examination^{fee II Year iV Sem with Hall ticket No'1722-17-} 831-139, respondent^{No.3 informedthat the petitioneris not} eligible as^per N+2 rule.

¶33

¶34

e) The^petitioner also approached the^{2nd respondent} to relax the condition, but they rejected the^{petitioner's request'} Therefore, the^present writ^petition has filed.

¶35

It is the speciFic case of the^petitioner that the^petitioner vide his representation dated 04.08.2023 addressed to respondent Nos.1 and 2, requested respondent Nos.1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to write the II Year IV SemInterpretation of statutes exam on 09.08.2023 as a special case since, the petitioner completed N+2 year rule with Hall ticket No.1722-t7-B3l-139, and on payment of the required examination fee along with penalty as stipulated under rules.

¶36

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 brings to the notice of this Court that the University Grants Commission has formulated the guidelines on determination 6f a Uniform Span Period within which a student may be allowed to qualify for a degree.

¶37

As per the said guidelines Condition No.2(b), Condition No.3 reads as under:

¶38

"Condition No.2(b): In exceptional circumstances a further extension of one more year may be granted. The exceptional circumstances be spelt

¶39

¶40

sN,l

¶41

out clearly by the relevant statutot-y body concerned of the u n iversity.

¶42

Condition No.3: Ordinarily, no student should be grvcn time beyond tlre extended pei-iod of two years. Horarever, in exceptional circumstances and on the basis of the merits of each case university may allow a student one more year for completion of the programme."

¶43

A bare perusal of the conditions referred to and extracted above clearly indicates that in exceptional circumstances and on the basis of the merits of each case university may grant further time period and allow a student for compietion of the programme.

¶44

B. It is represented by learned Standing Counsel appearing on belralf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner approached the Court in the last hours and in view of the fact that the examinations are scheduled tomorrow i.e., on 09.08.2023, hence respondent Nos.1 and 2 can only be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.08.2023, within a reasonable period.

¶45

Taking into consideration the said submission made by learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

¶46

¶47

Nos.1 and 2 and the Condition No.2(b) and Condition No.3 of the University Grants Commission guidelines on determination of a uniform span period within which a student may be allowed to qualify for a degree, this Court opines that the petitioner's case needs to be considered in accordance to the said guidelines.

¶48

Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated O4.O8.2023, in accordance to Condition No.2(b) and Condition No.3 of the UGC Auidelines on determination of a Uniform Span Period within which a student may be atlowed to qualify for a degree, within a period of two (O2) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duty communicating the decision to the petationer. However,

¶49

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶51

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶52

SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD ASSt STAIYI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secHPru OFFICER

¶53

To, secHPru OFFICER 1. The Reg istrar, Osmania Uni 2. The Con troller of Examinati ons, Osmania versity, HyderabadUn 4. 3. One CCThe^prin cipal, to SRt Dr.B.R.AmPONAKA bRAHUL ebkar law ColleoREDDY:Advoe, ivers Baglimgampally, Hyderabad-500044ity Hyderabad 5. One CC to SRt CH.JA cate. [OPU 6. Two CD Copies GANNATHA RAO (SC For Osmania University). [OpUC]

¶54

GJPBSK $*

('c'toDA'

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810812023

ORDER

WP.No.20560 of 2023

1ri :, s T.., Ia,'
t
I t,l
c
L) 0 s AUE 2S8
,,.
. ft--.-.!/
d,-IjS;,ni.,. --_-._... .. ..'

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Paranandi Sanjeeva Rao v. The Registrar Osmania University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paranandi Sanjeeva Rao v. The Registrar Osmania University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Himaja Guduru Vs The State of Telangana

Katta Vishwanatham, Vs Union of India

Mohd Majid Vs Union of India

Danda Santhosh Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company Tg Ltd.

M/S. Gilpra Infra Private Limited Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution, Corporation Limited

Smt. Poreddy Satyavathi Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.