Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Savita Balaso Niruke and Sanjay Dhondu Kolekar, are law students who had consistently failed their semester examinations from 2015 to 2019. However, after the COVID-19 pandemic forced examinations online from March 2020, both passed all subsequent exams until October 2021. They had backlog subjects from earlier semesters and sought permission from Shivaji University, Kolhapur, to appear for a special chance under Ordinance 0.120, which allows students to clear backlog subjects in a special examination. The University refused, stating that the Ordinance only applies to students who have exhausted all regular chances, and that the petitioners had not done so. The petitioners filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging this refusal. The Court observed that the University's interpretation was too rigid and that the Ordinance should be read liberally to advance the right to education. The Court noted that the petitioners had shown improvement by passing all online exams and that denying them a chance to clear backlogs would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court directed the University to grant the petitioners a special chance to appear for their backlog subjects within four weeks, and to declare their results accordingly. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Education Law - University Ordinances - Special Chance for Backlog Exams - Interpretation of Ordinance 0.120 - The petitioners, law students who failed multiple semester exams, sought a special chance to clear backlog subjects. The University refused, citing that Ordinance 0.120 only applies to students who have exhausted all regular chances. The Court held that the Ordinance must be interpreted liberally to advance the right to education, and directed the University to grant a special chance to the petitioners, especially considering the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. (Paras 1-15) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Education - Article 14 - Arbitrariness - The University's rigid interpretation of Ordinance 0.120 was found to be arbitrary and discriminatory, as it denied the petitioners an opportunity to complete their education despite their willingness to study. The Court emphasized that educational institutions should adopt a humane approach and not defeat the purpose of education by technicalities. (Paras 10-15) C) COVID-19 Pandemic - Impact on Examinations - Online Examinations - The Court noted that the petitioners passed all online examinations during the pandemic, indicating their capability. The failure in earlier semesters was attributed to personal circumstances, and the Court held that the University should consider the overall academic progress and not penalize students for past failures when they have shown improvement. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who have repeatedly failed semester examinations, are entitled to a special chance to clear their backlog subjects under the University's Ordinance 0.120, and whether the University's refusal to grant such chance is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The University is directed to grant the petitioners a special chance to appear for their backlog subjects within four weeks from the date of the order, and to declare their results accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right to education
- University ordinances
- Special chance for backlog exams
- COVID-19 impact on examinations
- Interpretation of University Ordinances
