Rubab Ajmali v. University of Delhi & Anr

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * Rule. The learned counsel for the respondent dispense with the notice. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. The result of the petitioner has been produced by the counsel for the University, Mr.Amit Bansal in a sealed cover. The result of the petitioner has been perused. 2009:DHC:3399 The petitioner has filed the abovenoted petition seeking direction to the respondents to issue roll number to the petitioner for appearing in the second year annual examination of B.A (Hons) Political Science and to allow her to participate in the course papers of second year annual examination of B.A (Hons) and to declare the result of the petitioner for the said examination. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court dated 15th April, 2009 petitioner was permitted to sit in the second year examination of B.A (Hons) starting from 18th April, 2009 with the condition that the result of the petitioner be not declared without permission of this Court and the respondents were directed to issue admit card/roll number to enable the petitioner to appear in the examination. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the second year examination of B.A (Hons) Political Science taking into consideration that her attendance was 90%. The petitioner had not been allowed to appear in the examination on the ground that as per regulations framed by academic council, the last date for submission of examination form and examination fees for the course of B.A (Hons) Part II was 15th December, 2008 and not later than 15 days before the commencement of the examination which in the case of the petitioner was 23rd March, 2009. The petitioner has contended that though she had deposited the fees on 23rd March, 2009, however, the receipt is alleged to had been given by the college to the petitioner on 24th March, 2009. The petitioner has further pleaded that on account of financial problems the fees could not be deposited in time and could be tendered only on 23rd March, 2009 along with a fine of Rs.1,310/-. The result of the petitioner is produced by the respondent University in a sealed cover which has been perused. The fees which was deposited by the petitioner on 23rd March, 2009 and which was deposited by the respondents on 24th March, 2009, had been remitted by the College to the University on 25th March, 2009. Whether the petitioner had deposited the fees on 23rd March, 2009 or whether it was deposited on 24th March, 2009 may not be very material in view of the fact that the fees was remitted to the University and petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination. The petitioner had paid the fees along with substantial amount of fine. Since the petitioner knew the last date of payment of fees and the fees was not paid by her earlier on account of financial difficulties faced by her, it will be difficult to infer that she would not tender the fees on 23rd March, 2009. In these facts and circumstances, if the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner, no such prejudice shall be caused to the respondents which will harm their interest. The direction to declare the result shall, however, be without making it a precedent. Though there is no provision according to the respondents for condonation of delay in submitting fees, however, in the present case it will be in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner. No purpose will be served, if the respondents are not permitted to declare the result of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstance. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, without this being a precedent, it will be just and appropriate and in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition in the facts and circumstances is allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner forthwith with all the consequential benefits. This adjudication of the pleas and contentions of the parties be not treated as a precedent. Parties are left to bear their own cost. All the pending applications are also disposed of. August 21, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘k’