0

Exam cancellation due to misconduct is not an arbitrary decision: High Court of Delhi

Blog , , ,

Title: Kavi Vaidwan And Ors Versus Delhi Skill And Entrepreneurship University And Ors

Citation:  Writ Petition(C) 13486/2023, CM APPL.53269/2023 & 53270/2023

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

Decided on: 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

 Introduction:

KaviVaidwan filed a writ petition of Mandamus against the notice of cancellation of examination by Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the aforesaid petition on the grounds that the act of DSEU is not arbitrary and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. 

Facts:

Vide notice on 1st November 2021, Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University declared 42 vacancies of Junior Assistant/Office Assistant posts. The said recruitment was to be conducted in 2 tiers. The candidates who appeared and qualified in the 1st Tier Examination i.e. written examination were shortlisted for the 2nd Tier Examination i.e. Skill/Typing Test.

The DSEU, before the 2nd Tier Examination, has released the list of selected and waiting list of candidates. The impugned petitioner of the above list has filed applications of writ before this Court. The DSEU, on finding out the presence of unfair means in two centres, have cancelled the entire examination to maintain the sanctity of the examination.

The Learned Counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, argued that the action taken by DSEU is an arbitrary act and violates the Fundamental rights under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, after the discussion on the aforesaid case, held that in order to maintain the sanctity of the examination, the State and its agencies have not left with any option other than cancellation of the entire examination. The Court has expressed its regret for the examination’s cancellation as well as for the innocent students who suffered because of the misconduct and disorderly conduct of their colleagues.

The Court also observed that it is extremely difficult for the agencies to determine and identify the students who have been engaged in such malpractices and irregularities from the ones with bonafide intentions. Thus, DSEU has failed to determine the extent to which the very integrity of the entire examination was compromised.

The petitioner has failed to provide evident reasons for the Court to interfere in the case. Also, the Court has declared that the action of DSEU was within its authority while cancelling the examination and hence cannot be alleged as arbitrary in nature.

The said writ petition was accordingly dismissed with this judgment.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by –  Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

0

Bombay HC: The State is ideally a quintessence of justice and a model litigant

blog , , ,

Title: State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Ajay Rajendra Pawar.

Decided on: 23.08.2023

+ REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 29872 OF 2019

CORAM: SUNIL B. SHUKRE & MANISH PITALE, JJ

Facts of the Case:

The court is addressing two review petitions arising from an earlier common order issued on November 28, 2017, related to three writ petitions filed in 2016. The original petitions sought the enforcement of an order from September 9, 2014, in which the Minister of State for Revenue directed the state authorities to refund amounts deposited by the petitioners for leasing sand ghats. The petitioners argued that due to intervening circumstances beyond their control, they were unable to fully excavate the sand ghats, and therefore, the proportionate amounts they deposited should be refunded.

Issues:

The main issues revolve around the review of the 2014 order by another Minister of State for Revenue in a subsequent order dated July 2, 2019, and the subsequent actions of the state authorities. Additionally, the court examines the discriminatory treatment by the state authorities in implementing the orders for different petitioners.

Contentions:

The original petitioners argued that the subsequent order of July 2, 2019, was passed without jurisdiction, as it reviewed an already final order and was made subject to the result of pending writ petitions, even though no such petitions were pending at the time. They contended that the state authorities complied with the original order despite the subsequent order. The petitioners pointed out that the actions of the state authorities were discriminatory, as they complied with the 2017 order for one petitioner but filed review petitions for the other two.

The court criticized the state authorities for their discriminatory attitude and arbitrary actions, highlighting that the third beneficiary of the 2017 order had been treated differently. The court emphasized that the state, as a model litigant, should not perpetuate inequality and arbitrariness.

Decision:

The court rejected the request for additional time to obtain instructions from the Advocate General, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and the injustice that would be done to the original petitioners. The court dismissed the review petitions filed by the state, stating that they should have realized their mistake and implemented the original order dated September 9, 2014, for all petitioners, just as they did for the third petitioner.

The court directed the state authorities to disregard the subsequent order of July 2, 2019, and implement the original order of September 9, 2014, for the two original petitioners. It ordered the state to pay the due amounts to the petitioners within three weeks from the date of the order, and in case of failure, imposed a simple interest rate of 7.0% per annum on the amounts due from November 28, 2017, until the release of the amounts. Additionally, the state was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to each of the petitioners, which could be recovered from the concerned officers at the state’s discretion.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

Click to view judgment