Allow 2 Years Extension Period for Student to Complete 5 Year Law Course: Andhra Pradesh HC
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Samuel Mathew Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Writ Petition No. 23462 of 2021- directed the respondent to act with a humanitarian approach and consider the petitioner-student’s plea for clearing his 43 papers of the 5 years law course. The grievance of the petitioner had arisen due to the erroneous recording of his details by the respondent-university.
A single bench consisting of Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao held:
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner on a special footing and grant him 2 years extended period to permit him to write all the 43 papers of 5 years law course within the extended period of 2 years on his paying examination fee. It is made clear that since the petitioner’s case is based on peculiar facts, it shall not be treated as a precedent in future cases.
The petitioner had passed the Lawcet entrance and was admitted in respondent no. 4 college under the 5 years integrated law degree. He stated that while issuing hall ticket for the first-year examination instead of 5years law course it was mentioned as 3 years law course due to which he could not sit for the examination. His request for correcting the hall ticket was not considered. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations on the same grievance with no respite. Aggrieved, he filed a writ seeking further directions for the respondent.
The counsel for respondent no. 4 submitted that the petitioner was admitted to their college for pursuing 5 years integrated law degree and in the whole scenario there was no fault on behalf of the petitioner. Further, the counsel stated that it had intimated about the alleged mistakes to respondent no. 2 and 3 but no action was taken. Furthermore, the counsel added that the petitioner had more than 75% attendance in all subject in these 5 years he must be allowed to sit for the examination if the correct hall tickets were issued.
The counsel for respondent no. 2, while opposing the writ, stated that neither the petitioner nor the respondent no. 4 had taken steps to rectify the mistakes and as per the regulation of the university a student who had only appeared for one semester and was willing to appear for remaining semesters together, in one stretch, is not possible. Such a student had to take re-admission from the university and the petitioner had to comply with this. The counsel further stated that the law course had 43 papers which was to be completed in 5 years and even if the petitioner gets 2 years as grace period, he cannot complete the said course within such time and it would therefore be better that he takes a fresh admission.
The court after hearing both the parties and relying on the facts of the case observed that the petitioner had to complete his 5 years law course by 2020-21, but due to incorrect submission of details of the petitioner by respondent no. 4 his hall tickets were wrongly issued which means there was no mistake on the part of the petitioner.
…after completion of the 1st year, while issuing hall ticket No.16302054024, it appears, due to submission of wrong particulars by the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent University sent the hall ticket to the petitioner through 4th respondent treating the petitioner, as if pursuing 3 years law course. Due to this costly mistake, the petitioner was not allowed to writ the 1st year examination. Since thereafter, though he made representation to the 4th respondent and 4th respondent in turn represented to the 2nd respondent University there was no fruitful results. Ultimately he could not write the subsequent semesters. Admittedly there was no mistake on the part of the petitioner.
Therefore, the court directed the respondent university to take a humanitarian approach considering the career prospect of the petitioner and allow him to write all the 43 papers and complete his course within grace period of 2 years, failing to which the petitioner shall take fresh admission and start from first year.
Accordingly, the case was disposed of.
Rasmita Behera | Research Intern | EduLegaL
Swapna Iyer | Legal Editor | EduLegaL