These examinations, which allow former students to retake and clear previously failed papers, are governed by academic policy.
Justice C. Hari Shankar said: "Unfortunately, the decision to grant Shatabdi a chance, and the conditions under which such a chance is to be given, are matters which belong to the realm of pure academic policy."
The court said that neither the candidates who failed to pass all the papers within the maximum duration of their course have the right to ask for additional chances nor is DU bound to provide them to them.
The judgment upheld the DU notification issued on April 1 for "Centenary Chance Special Examination Phase II", which allowed former students to re-appear for a maximum of four papers, and dismissed the petition by Campus Law alumnus Chhavi. Gave. Center (CLC) who had passed only 16 out of 30 papers during his LLB course from 2009 to 2012.The court said that in the first notification issued on May 1, 2022 for the Centenary Chance examination, no limit was specified on the number of papers that can be reattempted. However, a subsequent notification banned four papers, which Chhavi protested.
Dismissing their plea, Justice Shankar clarified that both the centenary opportunities were discretionary benefits provided by DU as part of its centenary celebrations, with no enforceable rights.
“The terms and conditions on which such benefits were to be extended to alumni were also a matter entirely within the province and exclusive discretion of DU,” he said.
The court found that the impugned notification was a legitimate policy decision taken by DU for legitimate reasons."If DU decided to allow re-attempts of all papers in the First Centenary Opportunity, and limit the Second Centenary Opportunity to four papers, it was nothing more than a legitimate exercise of the discretion vested in DU in this regard " The court saw.
Justice Shankar concluded that no case of arbitrariness or invalidity of the D policy was demonstrated during the writ petition or oral arguments.
"In such cases, this Court is of the view that caution should be exercised even in issuing notices. If the educational bodies are made accountable to the Court in respect of any policy decision taken by them, it will be at odds with their autonomy and governance. Will seriously affect freedom." the court said.
Justice C. Hari Shankar said: "Unfortunately, the decision to grant Shatabdi a chance, and the conditions under which such a chance is to be given, are matters which belong to the realm of pure academic policy."
The court said that neither the candidates who failed to pass all the papers within the maximum duration of their course have the right to ask for additional chances nor is DU bound to provide them to them.
The judgment upheld the DU notification issued on April 1 for "Centenary Chance Special Examination Phase II", which allowed former students to re-appear for a maximum of four papers, and dismissed the petition by Campus Law alumnus Chhavi. Gave. Center (CLC) who had passed only 16 out of 30 papers during his LLB course from 2009 to 2012.The court said that in the first notification issued on May 1, 2022 for the Centenary Chance examination, no limit was specified on the number of papers that can be reattempted. However, a subsequent notification banned four papers, which Chhavi protested.
Dismissing their plea, Justice Shankar clarified that both the centenary opportunities were discretionary benefits provided by DU as part of its centenary celebrations, with no enforceable rights.
“The terms and conditions on which such benefits were to be extended to alumni were also a matter entirely within the province and exclusive discretion of DU,” he said.
The court found that the impugned notification was a legitimate policy decision taken by DU for legitimate reasons."If DU decided to allow re-attempts of all papers in the First Centenary Opportunity, and limit the Second Centenary Opportunity to four papers, it was nothing more than a legitimate exercise of the discretion vested in DU in this regard " The court saw.
Justice Shankar concluded that no case of arbitrariness or invalidity of the D policy was demonstrated during the writ petition or oral arguments.
"In such cases, this Court is of the view that caution should be exercised even in issuing notices. If the educational bodies are made accountable to the Court in respect of any policy decision taken by them, it will be at odds with their autonomy and governance. Will seriously affect freedom." the court said.
