AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R.Brahmbhatt, J
The present Letters Patent Appeal is taken out challenging the interim order dated 28.06.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 9654 of 2019.
The prayers in the petition deserves to be set out as under :
"A Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the impugned decision in ANNEXURE - A hereto and hold that the permission for conversion from full time M.Tech course to part-time M. Tech course cannot be denied on the ground of taking a job by the student during the vacation after appearing for dissertation preliminaries after the last day of teaching of the 3rd semester (autumn semester)
B. Your Lordships be pleased to hold that the impugned decision in ANNEXURE - A is arbitrary, issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, non-speaking,m vague, omits relevant contentions, going beyond the resolution no. 13 passed by the Senate at its meeting held on 16.02.2013, discriminatory, and therefore illegal;
C. Alternatively and without prejudice to the preceding prayer, your Lordships may hold that the Petitioner is entitled for parity in treatment similar to treatment/decision meted out to Mr. Modhwadia Raju Vejabhai during the academic year 2017-18 and thus, the petitioner is entitled to pursue part-time M Tech course in accordance with resolution 13 of Senate minutes dated 16.02.2013.
D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application, an ad-interim order staying the operation of the impugned decision at ANNEXURE - A with a direction to Respondents No.3 and 4 to allow the petitioner to complete the pre-registration for the next semester on 17th May 2019 and direct the Respondent no.2 to 4 to ensure that the necessary formalities for pre-registration as well as participation in the part-time course be the petitioner be allowed unconditionally.
E. An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (D) above may kindly be granted; and
F Such other and further or incidental reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted."
The original petitioner and respondent in present Letters Patent Appeal appears to have filed the petition being aggrieved and dissatisfied with authority's declining to accede to the petitioner's request for conversion her from full time M Tech course into part time, as provided under the provisions prevalent with slight deviation, as the conversion was not requested in 4th semester as prescribed and it was requested slightly before 3rd semester as the petitioner got an employment offer wherein she was required to join immediately when 3rd semester was on the verge of getting completed and her dissertation preliminaries (examination) was permitted to be preponed and she was not in any manner falling sort of either any academic requirement or attendance requirement, the authority did not accede to this request only on the ground that as the request was not made in 4th semester and it was made only in 3rd semester, the conversion cannot be permitted. The petitioner relied upon one incident of Shri Modhwadia, which was sought to be distinguished by respondent - present appellant, as Shri Modhwadia did not ask for any advancement of dissertation preliminaries (examination) though his request for conversion was made in the vacation of 3rd semester.
The learned Single Judge passed the following order :
"Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Rule, returnable after four weeks. Ms.Megha Jani waives service of notice of Rule for respondent Nos.2-4.
Having regard to the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties and more particularly, considering the fact that earlier Mr.Raju Modhvadiya was permitted to convert from full time M.Tech course to part-time M.Tech course before the completion of third semester, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the same lines as the case of Mr.Raju Modhvadiya, for granting registration for part-time course in the 4th Semester. Such registration shall be subject to the outcome of the present petition.
Direct service is permitted."
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this order would set as precedent in which the very sanctity of the post graduation course and its tenure will affect and therefore, the same would not have been granted by the Court.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that advancing of the dissertation preliminaries in itself would not be treated to have been sufficient for treating the 3rd semester complete, as academic calendar at page- 165 would clearly indicate that 3rd semester would end at least on 7th December and not prior thereto.
The learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that the preponement of the preliminary examination for 4th semester is not a unique case and in fact for all sort of reasons including attending the marriage or otherwise, the student have been requesting for preponing of the said examination and hostile discrimination is required to be frowned upon only on account of the fact that institute ought not to have been so technical as to jeopardize the chances of employment and aspirant to complete post graduation study.
We are of the view that order under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal clearly indicates that the interim relief granted is subject to final outcome of the petition. The apprehension raised on behalf of appellant qua the same being treated as precedent may not be sustainable, as such interim order cannot be treated as precedent at all. At the best, the reliance thereof could be placed by similarly situated students but each case is required to be dealt with in accordance with facts of the case. This Court would have perhaps considered interfering, had there been a slightest likelihood of infringement of any academic requirement, presence and attendance requirement or any violation of statutory provisions but in absence thereof, when the denial to conversion is only based upon mere technicality of 3rd semester not completed, when the request was made and that in itself cannot be said to be so tenable argument for jeopardizing the petitioner's employment opportunity and her aspiration to achieve higher degrees. The petitioner has already completed her dissertation preliminaries (examination) and vacation is about to start, the 4th semester's non-starting, prima-facie cannot be said to be a so grave impediment in the way of the petitioner in seeking conversion. We therefore do not find any substance in Letters Patent Appeal so as to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge.
In the result, the Appeal fails and is hereby rejected. It goes without saying that the order of Single Judge as well as this Court would not be treated as precedent as the same are being passed in peculiar facts and circumstances on hand.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION :
In view of order passed in Letters Patent Appeal, no order in Civil Application and is disposed of accordingly.