Can’t be allowed to re-appear in exam on ground of being

Can't be allowed to re-appear in exam on ground of being
Can’t be allowed to re-appear in exam on ground of being

The Delhi High Court has upheld cancellation of admission of a student to third year of an under-graduation course at Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), saying there is no question of giving him another chance only on the ground of being a Scheduled Caste.

“In the instant case, since the appellant was found ineligible after second academic break, his admission stood automatically cancelled. Therefore, there is no question of any further chance only on the ground of being an SC/ST,” a division bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and V P Vaish said.

Dismissing the plea of Gourav Joshiya, who was pursuing Bachelor of Technology from Amity School of Engineering and Technology, the bench said he was ineligible for admission to third year as he could not clear the previous four semesters.

It upheld the single judge order refusing another chance to the student for clearing the exams and said the opportunity would have been given to him if he had been able to satisfy the necessary eligibility criteria.

“To attain an egalitarian society, we have to urgently remove socio-economic inequalities. Therefore, in order to promote these weaker sections of the society an educational institution must take all endeavours by providing any form of additional assistance in order to bring them up at par with general category students.

“The appeal of the appellant may have been allowed on this ground alone, if he would have been able to satisfy necessary eligibility criteria for continuance of his admission with the respondents,” it said.

Gourav had challenged a single judge order of May 25, 2015 denying him a chance to re-appear in the examinations to get admitted to the third year.

In his appeal, the student, who got admitted to the college in 2010, had claimed he had sent a mercy application to the university’s committee concerned in October 2014, but through a notification on November 7, 2014, it was rejected and his admission was also cancelled.

He had contended that the single judge has misconceived that he had to appear in 10 papers in May-June 2015, whereas he had to appear in five.

The university, however, said there was delay in filing the writ petition by the student as he filed it in April 2015, but the admission was cancelled in November 2014.

It also told the court that during academic year 2012-13 and 2013-14, the appellant had reappeared in the failed papers of first year and second year but could not clear them and hence failed to secure minimum credits for promotion to third year.

Court turns down plea of 200 failed students

In a setback to hundreds of students of the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, the Delhi High Court Friday turned down a petition of over 200 students, refusing to promote the unsuccessful students to the next session.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw declined to give relief to the students saying: “It was the university policy decision. So the court cannot interfere with the decision.”

The petitioner students came from various professional colleges affiliated to the university and belonged to the 2009 and 2010 batches.

The petitioner alleged that the university had different criteria for promoting professional course students from colleges run by it and those studying in colleges affiliated to it.

“These students are aggrieved by the credit system which has been evolved by the university as a criteria for promotion. The university has introduced a scheme that every student should have a minimum of 50 percent credit for the current year and overall 90 percent credit of previous years to get promoted to the next academic year,” said the petition.

“The credit System is not based on performance-based grading neither there were equal number of grades in each semester. These two aspects of the credit system make implementation of the System extremely arbitrary and leading to disastrous consequences,” said the petition

The university maintained an extremely high pass marks of 50 per subject. The rationale behind such high pass marks was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. There was no reassessment or revaluation, the petition said.