In a recent order, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition filed by a LLM student, who is also a Judicial officer, leveling allegations of malpractice in evaluation of examination by the University.
The Petitioner Deepika, a Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge in Delhi, was pursuing her LLM through correspondence from the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. Having failed in the Insurance Law exam twice, she invoked the writ jurisdiction of the high court, alleging that a "racket" was going on in the University and that students were being failed deliberately so that the University could earn money by charging for re-evaluation.
She submitted that she was a meritorious student and had secured 72 marks out of 100 in the same subject in her L.L.B examination. The paper in the L.L.M examination was quite simple and thus, she could not fail.
"There is a racket going on in respondent-University. Students are being failed so that the University can earn money by charging for re-evaluation," she alleged.
Refusing to intervene in the matter, the court said that merely because she was a meritorious student in her graduation did not mean that she could not fail in her LLM examination. It further clarified that mere "apprehension" of malpractice was not sufficient and that cogent material was necessary to seek judicial interference.
"The fact that the petitioner was a meritorious student in L.L.B does not mean that her performance cannot fall. Admitted, she is currently working as a Judicial Officer and thus, she may not have been able to devote adequate time to her studies. The writ Court cannot examine whether the paper was simple or difficult nor can it opine on the conduct of examiners unless material is placed on record to substantiate the allegations. There is nothing on record to indicate any mala fides. The grievance is based upon apprehensions and thus, cannot be accepted," Justice Sudhir Mittal said.
The court has granted her liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the University, on the basis of cogent evidence.
"In case, the petitioner has evidence to show that a racket is in operation in the respondent-University, she is at liberty to highlight the same through any other appropriate proceedings. In the present writ petition, there is no material on record from which it can be inferred that students are being failed for the purpose of earning money," it held.
Case Title: Deepika v. Kurukshetra University & Anr.
Case No.: CWP 3496/2020 (O&M)
Quorum: Justice Sudhir Mittal
Appearance: Advocate RS Dhull (for Petitioner)
Click Here To Download Order