Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

"Charity Beyond Law Is Cruelty To Others": Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea For 16 Grace Marks For Admission To IGNOU's BSc Course

Shreya Agarwal
11 Jan 2021 3:27 PM GMT
Charity Beyond Law Is Cruelty To Others: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea For 16 Grace Marks For Admission To IGNOUs BSc Course
x

Observing that, "Charity outside the law is cruelty to others," a Division judge bench of the Delhi High Court led by Chief Justice DN Patel, today rejected a plea by a female BSc aspirant of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) seeking 16 grace marks for admission into the open university's BSc (Biology) degree course. The petitioner had preferred a Letters...

Observing that, "Charity outside the law is cruelty to others," a Division judge bench of the Delhi High Court led by Chief Justice DN Patel, today rejected a plea by a female BSc aspirant of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) seeking 16 grace marks for admission into the open university's BSc (Biology) degree course.

The petitioner had preferred a Letters Patent Appeal challenging a Single Judge bench order which had also rejected her plea. She stated that she was a "brilliant child", who had secured admission into various other courses as well, including the Delhi University's LLB programme

However, she had failed to secure the passing marks (36) in the entrance for admission into IGNOU's BSc (Biology) course, wherein she secured 20 only.

She sought relief on the ground of her brilliance and on grounds of being a female child.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner fully, Chief Justice Patel remarked, "So you want us to give you 16 grace marks for admission into this course?"

Dismissing the appeal, he said, "This is not permissible in the eyes of law. No rules, regulations or by-laws (exist) allowing the grant of 16 grace marks."

He also further noted that in the appeal no challenge had been made to the procedure for grant of the marks and therefore the Single Judge's order was not at all erroneous in law.


Next Story