Delhi High Court has held that unless the information bulletin/prospectus makes it crystal clear that the result of the supplementary exam would not relate to the main exam, the benefit has to be given to the candidate.
The present petition was moved by a candidate who was seeking admission in National Law University, Delhi for an LL.M. course. The eligibility criteria which the NLUD had put in place for the 2019 LL.M. course required that a candidate should have passed the LL.B. course or obtained an equivalent degree from a recognised university with not less than 55% aggregate.
While the petition did complete his LL.B. course, he did so on a date which fell beyond the date on which orientation for candidates who were given provisional admission for the 2019 LL.M. course was held.
Therefore the court had to adjudicate upon the following question: Whether the NLUD is right in rejecting the petitioners claim to the 2019
LL.M. course on the ground that on the date when orientation was held, he had not qualified for the LL.B. course?
While the candidate had not finished his LL.B. programme, he was allowed to appear for the AILET exam on the basis of Regulation 3(b) of the LL.M. Programs which reads as:
'Candidates awaiting results of the qualifying examination can appear for the Entrance Test subject to a condition that they produce proof of having passed the qualifying examination at the time of admission'
Upon clearing the exam, when the petitioner was called for the orientation, he wrote an email to the NLUD, saying that he is given further time to submit the result of his LL.B. course as his result had been delayed by the University due to technical glitches.
While the petitioner received no response from the University addressing his request, he later received wherein the University had given him his roll-number for the LL.M programme. Pursuant to that, he sat for a supplementary exam only to receive a later communication which said that his provisional admission to the 2019 LL.M. course had been cancelled as he had not passed the qualifying exam on the date when orientation qua the 2019 LL.M. course was held.
The argument on behalf of the candidates was that the result of the supplementary exam should relate to the outcome of the main exam given the fact that there was nothing to the contrary stated in the LL.M. regulations.
On the other hand, appearing for NLUD, Mr Sunil Agarwal submitted that the petitioner was required to produce proof of having passed the qualification exam at the time of admission.
While agreeing with the contention of the petitioner, the court noted that the fact that he was given a roll-number by the University shows that the petitioner was entitled to believe that the request for extension of time that he had made vide applications dated 10.08.2019 and 13.08.2019 had persuaded the concerned authority in the NLUD to grant him an extension to submit his LL.B. course result.