AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gita Mittal, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks re-evaluation of practical product of the petitioner which was submitted by him for the M.A. (Mass Communication) Final Year Examination of 2006 which is lying with the respondent. My attention has been drawn to an order dated 4th April, 2007 passed in WP (C) No. 2572/2007 whereby on a statement made on behalf of the respondent, a panel for this very purpose, for the same examination in respect of two candidates, was appointed.
Mr. Siddiqui, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, has pointed out that though the court had directed the composition of the panel, however, the mandate which was to be discharged by the panel was not specified in the order creating difficulty for it. It is further submitted that in the special circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as the panel which was appointed in the earlier writ petition, is yet to undertake its mandate, the same panel be directed to re-examine the practical product of the petitioners which has been questioned before this Court.
In these circumstances, it is directed that the panel of examiners appointed by the order dated 4th April, 2007 comprising of Mr. Firoz Bakht Ahmad, Mr. Mike H. Pandey and Mr. Deepak Haldankar, of which Mr. Firoz Bakht Ahmad shall be the Chairman, shall reexamine the practical product which was submitted by the petitioners to the respondent No. 1 - University for the M.A. (Mass Communication) Final Year Examination, 2006 and submit their evaluation to the respondent No. 1.
It shall also be open to the respondent No. 1 to consider representations by any other similarly placed students which may be pending before it and pass appropriate orders, if deemed appropriate, for re-evaluation of their practical products as well and place the same for this purpose before the panel.
This writ petition and application are disposed of.
It is further clarified that these directions have been made strictly in respect of the course and batch in question having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and anything done by the University in relation to these students, shall not be cited as a precedent.