0
mumbai high court

Universities to conduct examinations in Uniform Pattern: Bombay High Court

A plea made by a student seeking a uniform examination pattern has been upheld by the Bombay High Court through a learned bench of Justices Milind Jadhav and Abhay Ahuja in the case of Balusha Santosh Bhasal and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO. 6385 OF 2022.)

FACTS OF THE CASE: The plea was co-filed by Balusha Bhasal, a first-year law student and a social worker who was approached by students facing the same concerns. Advocate Anubha Shrivastava Sahai who represented the petitioners raised the various concerns faced by the students owing to the different examination patterns followed by different universities. The plea further stated how the gap between the exams lengthened the examination schedule thus, putting the students who wish to pursue their studies abroad at a disadvantage. In addition to this, the petitioners also highlighted the lack of uniformity in the examination timetables of different universities. Moreover, the disparity of students appearing for Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) and Descriptive exams was highlighted, emphasizing on the unfair advantages this would provide to competing students. Thus, the petitioners prayed for uniformity with respect to examinations and academic calendars.

The respondents contended that examinations had already begun in many colleges, to which the petitioners responded that the state’s instruction might be considered where examinations had yet to be held. As a result, the petition was disposed of, leaving all parties’ claims open. The petitioners requested a writ of mandamus ordering a single examination pattern and method of examination, as well as a definitive remedy of timely announcement of results.

JUDGEMENT: The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and subsequently, directed the university to conduct the examinations in a uniform mode. The petitioners were further directed to submit a representation to the government and further, the government would decide on the same.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY- REETI SHETTY

Click here to view judgement

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat