AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 order and quash the same as the same has been passed contrary to the
directions in Ext.P2 judgment and against Ext.P1 representation.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order directing the 1st respondent to re-consider the matter afresh and pass orders within a
time bound manner upon Ext.P1 taking note of the grievances raised by the students.â€
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University.
The contention of the petitioners is that the request made by the petitioners for conduct of the supplementary examinations for odd and even
semesters separately by the respondent University was directed to be considered by the 1st respondent by Ext.P2 judgment of this Court. It is
submitted that, thereafter, Ext.P3 communication has been issued by the 4th respondent, which is against the directions contained in Ext.P2. It is
further submitted that the request of more than 1000 students, which has been referred to in Ext.P3 was not for the conduct of the odd and even
semester examinations together but only to expedite the examinations.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the legitimate request of the petitioners had not been considered by the 1st respondent
as directed in Ext.P2. The petitioners have also produced Exts.P5 and P6 to show that the supplementary examinations were being conducted
separately for odd and even semesters by the respondent University. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the major complaint
in Ext.P1 was with regard to the delay in publication of the results, which has not been adverted to in Ext.P3.
Ext.P3 specifically refers to the contentions of the petitioners. A reading of Ext.P3 would show that the 1st respondent has considered the request
made by the petitioners and had taken a decision on the basis of the report submitted by the examination wing of the University. Ext.P3 only amounts
to the communication of the decision taken by the 1st respondent. Moreover, the request made by more than 1000 students for conducting the
supplementary examinations for odd and even semesters together has also been adverted to in Ext.P3.
I am of the opinion that if the issue with regard to conduct of odd and even semester examinations separately or together is a purely academic
matter, which is well within the competence of the authorities of the University. It is apparent that the 1st respondent has taken a decision after
considering all relevant aspects, which has been communicated by Ext.P3. Since Ext.P3 is a decision with regard to conduct of the semester
examinations for odd and even semesters together, I am of the opinion that this Court would not be justified in interfering in the exercise of jurisdiction
by the respondents. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly closed.