AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.M.Chhaya, J
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgement and Order passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram : N.V. Anjaria, J.) in SCA No. 5584/21, the appellant University has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
Heard Ms. Megha Jani, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Ronith Joy, learned advocate for the respondent-original petitioner on caveat.
3.The facts, which can be culled out from the record of the appeal, are as under -
3.1 That the original petitioner is student of B.Tech in the appellant University. It appears from the record that the respondent-original petitioner was not in an appropriate mental health because of the effect of Covid-19 Pandemic and suffered depression. Due to such temporary disability, the respondent-original petitioner could not appear in the Online Examination. The record reveals that the respondent-original petitioner did not even inform his parents about the mental depression. It is the case of the respondent-original petitioner that on 29.09.2020, for the first time, his parents came to know that the respondent-original petitioner has been removed from the institution. The parents, in hope to save the future of their son, who is pursuing such an ambitious course, made fervent requests before the appellant authorities and requested them to reconsider his admission. Even the medical papers in form of opinion from the Doctor was presented to the appellant University. As nothing was done and as the request made by the parents as well as the respondent-original petitioner was not considered favourably, the same resulted into the present litigation.
3.2. By an order dated 23.04.2021, the learned Single Judge permitted the respondent-original petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination which was to take place in the first week of May 2021. Several contentions were taken by both the sides before the learned Single Judge. Reliance was placed on the provisions of Regulation 7.3 of the University.
The learned Single Judge interpreted Regulation 7.3 along with Regulations no. 10 and 10.1 and even considered the provisions of Regulations 15.1, 15.3 and 15.4 in particular, and opined that the respondent-original petitioner was victim of depressive cycle due to Covid-19 Pandemic and considering the facts of the case, observed thus -
"6. In the totality of the facts and circumstances obtained as above, and in light of the operation of the Regulations as discussed above, the Court is of the view that there is no good reason not to give the benefit of Regulations 15.3 and 15.4 of the Regulations to the petitioner student. Though by interim measure which may not create any right as such, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the supplementary examination. The petitioner has cleared for both the semesters and having cleared the same, the petitioner now possesses the requisite minimum 25 credit marks to acquire the eligibility to study further to complete the course.
6.1 Approach of sympathy is not the rule of law, yet the law has to be benevolent to sub-serve the interests of justice, wherever the facts and circumstances so justify and demand. This is one such case.
The aspect of petitioner having cleared the examinations and acquiring the minimum credit marks, cannot be overlooked to put the petitioner at a disadvantageous situation. When the medical illness of the petitioner was attributable to the pandemic period and was during the pandemic period, when the Regulations of the respondent Institute permitted the supplementary examinations in such eventuality and when the petitioner has cleared the supplementary examinations successfully, it will be inequitable, arbitrary and contrary to the tenets of justness, fairness and equality, to disregard the factor.
In the above view, the respondents have to reconsider their decision to cancel the registration and undertake the exercise of arriving at a fresh decision in light of the facts which are presently obtained. The decision of the Academic Performance Review Committee communicated on 05th October, 2020 by Dean (Academic) cancelling the registration and admission of the petitioner student is hereby set aside. The communications dated 04th November, 2020 (Annexure-K) and dated 12th March, 2021 (Annexure-A) and the decisions reflected therein are also hereby set aside, in order to enable the respondent Institute to take a fresh view of the matter and arrive at a decision anew.
7.1 The competent authority of the respondent Institute shall pass fresh order in relation to the case of the petitioner and about permitting the petitioner to continue his studies in the course of B.Tech., which shall be guided by the discussion, observations and findings in this order, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the present order.
The time of prosecution of the petition till this order is passed, shall not be hindering factor for the petitioner, nor shall be an aspect for the respondent Institute in taking the decision as above.
The petition is disposed of with above directions."
These directions are challenged by way of this Letters Patent Appeal before this Court.
Ms. Megha Jani, learned counsel appeared for the appellant and Mr. Ronith Joy, learned advocate appeared for the respondent-original petitioner firstly on 14.09.2021. During the course of hearing before this Court, suggestion was made by this Court to consider the grim situation of the effect of Covid - 19 Pandemic and requested the learned counsel for the appellant University to consider the issue of admission of the respondent-original petitioner.
We are happy to note that today, during the course of hearing, this Court has been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the University is ready and willing to reconsider the issue as a special case.
It was pointed out that considering the fact that Covid-19 Pandemic has affected one and all and under such special circumstances, it has been conceded by the appellant that looking at the special nature of serious illness of the respondent-original petitioner during the pandemic, which is also noticed by this Court, the appellant would give admission to the Respondent-original petitioner in the third semester of B.Tech Program that has commenced from July 26, 2021.
In light of such consensus arrived at between the parties, the following directions are given-
1) Considering the special nature of serious illness of respondent-original petitioner during pandemic, which is also noticed by this Court, the appellant would give admission to the respondent-original petitioner in the third semester of B.Tech(Civil Engineering) Programme, which has commenced from July 26, 2021.
2) That the appellant Institute will be permitted to declare the result of the respondent-original petitioner student. That the respondent-original petitioner student, shall be admitted in the third Semester of B.Tech(Civil Engineering) Programme, which has commenced from 26.07.2021 on payment of requisite amount of semester fees and other dues including supplementary examination fees.
3) The respondent-original petitioner student shall have to write make-up examination in place of regular mid-semester examination.
4) It is also provided that the attendance of the respondent-original petitioner-student shall be calculated with effect from the date of registration.
Without entering into the merits, as agreed, it is noted that the findings of the learned Single Judge in para 5.7 as regards Regulations 7.3, 15.3 and 15.4 are hereby quashed and set aside and are to be read as made in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances during the period of Covid-19 pandemic. It is clarified that all observations made in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge have been made in Covid-19 pandemic situation and not be treated as precedent.
The appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
As the appeal is disposed of, connected Civil Application also stands disposed of.
Direct Service permitted.