The students missing the examination due to pre-ponement who were not intimated by email, SMS or through any other mode, shall be eligible to appear in the exams held afterwards. This proclamation was made by the Delhi High Court presided by J. Prateek Jalan in the case of Vipin vs University of Delhi & others. [W.P.(C) 3049/2020 & CM APPLs. 10616, 29168/2020].
The petitioner enrolled for the LL.M. course in 2014. The duration of the course was three years (6 terms). Under the University’s rules and regulations, all the papers for the LL.M. course had to be cleared within six years. He was unable to appear in this paper in the regular examination of December, 2014 or subsequently in December, 2015. He did appear in the said paper in December 2016, December 2017 and December 2018, but was unsuccessful in the said paper. In this revised datesheet, the date of the Intellectual and Industrial Property Law was advanced to 16.12.2019. It was undisputed that the revised datesheet was not communicated to the candidates by any personal means of communication but only uploaded on the website of the University. As far as the examination of December, 2020 is concerned, the petitioner was not eligible to appear for the same in view of the fact that the maximum span period of six years from the date of his admission had lapsed.
The Division Bench observed, “It appears that the examination of the aforesaid paper was initially fixed on 28th December, 2019 and the appellant was to appear in the said examination, being his last remaining attempt to complete the said course. It appears from the facts of the case that respondent University pre-poned the date of the examination to 16th December, 2019. However, the intimation about the said pre-ponement was not given to the appellant either by email, SMS or through any other mode.” The bench further observed, “This last attempt was missed by the appellant because of the pre-ponement of the date of examination by the respondent University for which neither any email, nor any SMS, nor any personal communication, was sent to him. We, therefore, allow this appellant to appear in the examination.”
The honorable court observed, “In the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the petitioner has been able to justify the relief sought. At Mr. Rupal’s request, it is made clear that this judgment does not foreclose the issue as to whether the same reasoning would be applicable to a different factual situation. Since the petitioner has already appeared in the examination in December 2020, pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench dated 09.12.2020, his entitlement to the degree will depend upon the result thereof. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is allowed.”
