Sharookh Khan v. Indira Gandhi National Open University

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, seeking following reliefs: “...1. Direct the Respondent University authorities to declare the result of the Petitioner with regard to changed subject for which he appeared in Term End 20 Examination.

2. Direct the Respondent University authorities to reissue the marksheet of the Petitioner by replacing the subject EHI03 (History) with BULE03 (Urdu)...”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein had got himself enrolled in Indira Gandhi National Open University in July, 2017, in the B.A. (Hindi) course. On 08.04.2022, the petitioner had applied for a change of subject from History to Urdu, as he was ineligible for many college admissions and entrance examinations due to the requirement of having the same subject for all three years of the course when applying for jobs, master’s programs, or a B.Ed. The petitioner had Urdu in the 1st and 3rd years but not in the 2nd year. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted an application to rectify this by changing one subject in the 2nd year, to ensure consistency across all three years. The University had accepted this application on 21.04.2022, and had published the same on its portal. Following this, the petitioner had submitted all assignments relevant to the new subject on 11.05.2022, and the confirmation from the University was received on 01.09.2022. The petitioner had then filled out the form for the Term End Examination (TEE) on 06.06.2022, and had received the admit card on 20.07.2022. The petitioner had appeared for the examination on 12.08.2022, having prepared thoroughly and completed it successfully. However, when the results were declared on 18.11.2022, the petitioner’s result carried the remark “Course Not Opted”. Subsequently, on 13.01.2023, the petitioner had submitted a letter to the Registrar, seeking the declaration of his result. These events have led to the filing of the present petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the University’s conduct was arbitrary and unjust since the University had accepted the subject change application, allowed the petitioner to submit assignments, issued an admit card for the TEE, and permitted the petitioner to complete the examination, and yet, the University has withheld the results on the flimsy pretext that declaring the result would be against the rules and regulations. It is further argued that this action has jeopardized the petitioner’s academic career, as more than a year had passed since the University had accepted the subject change application. It is stated that the University, after allowing the petitioner to appear in the TEE, could not now withhold the result, especially when the University failed to notify the petitioner of any issue with the subject change. Therefore, it is submitted that the University be directed to declare the result for the subject in which the petitioner appeared during the TEE. It is also contended that if the University had acted inadvertently, it could not now claim that the acceptance of the subject change and the subsequent examination process were invalid, given that the petitioner’s academic year was at stake.

4. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the University argues that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands, having concealed several crucial facts. It is stated that the petitioner had appeared for the Urdu examination (FUD[1]) under the foundation course in the 1st and 3rd years (BULE[4] under the elective course) and had taken History in the 2nd year (EHI[3] under the elective course). It is submitted that the petitioner had already completed the program, as evidenced by the petitioner’s participation in the TEE in June 2021 for the BULE04 course and the issuance of a final statement of marks and a provisional certificate on 03.09.2021. It is further argued that the petitioner’s elective subject change was accepted through the online portal, which lacked a mechanism to block such changes after a degree had been awarded. However, the petitioner was fully aware of the completion of the program and had nonetheless misled the Court. It is argued that the petitioner had completed the B.A. program based on the original courses selected and could not retroactively seek to alter the elective courses after obtaining the degree. It is thus submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief, including a revised statement of marks replacing course BULE03 with EHI03, after having already received their degree.

5. This Court’s attention has been drawn towards Para no. 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University, which reads as under: “...(11) the change of the elective was subsequently accepted online as there is no mechanism available in the online elective change portal which could block and prevent the processing of such cases where a learner has already successfully completed his/her programme and degree has been awarded and issued. The Petitioner was very well aware about this fact, still the petitioner has misled this Court by concealing full facts before this Hon'ble Court and has taken undue advantage of the University examination system...”

6. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states, on instructions, that he will withdraw the present petition. He, however, insists that his prayer regarding amendment be adjudicated upon.

7. Clearly, the petitioner was not entitled to apply for a subject change, nor is he entitled to the relief sought before this Court. Since the petitioner had completed his B.A. program in June 2021 and had already been conferred a degree, he cannot retrospectively alter the subjects of the second year of the same program. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought permission to withdraw the present petition as far as these prayers are concerned.

8. However, in view of the facts and circumstances brought before this Court, it is directed that the respondent University may add a column in their online portal, wherein the information is to be filled by a candidate at the time of applying for a change of subject, as to whether the candidate has already completed his studies or is still in the college/university. This is to prevent situations such as the present case, where the petitioner, having already completed his three-year B.A. program with a different set of subjects and having been awarded a degree qua the said program, was still able to apply for a subject change for the second year of a program he had already obtained a degree for. Due to the respondent not having any mechanism to find out as to whether a person is applying for a subject change of an already qualified program for which a candidate has even obtained a degree, the petitioner herein also did not know that he could not have substituted a subject of an already concluded and qualified program for which he had already obtained a degree. Due to lack of such mechanism, he was permitted to appear for a subject of second year though he had already passed out and had obtained a degree qua the said program. Since it is not permissible under the rules and regulations of the respondent/university, the petitioner herein could not have been allowed to appear for a different subject of an already passed program. Consequently, the petitioner has experienced unnecessary loss of time and financial resources.

9. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with above directions.

10. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2024