1. This petition has been filed seeking the following main reliefs;
"(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to consider the representations of the petitioner at Annexure-A Collectively to the petition by quashing and setting aside the communication dated 13-15/12/2011 at Annexure-F to the petition and further be pleased to direct the respondent to award three other gold medals to the petitioner.
(B) As the convocation is completed on 17.12.2011, be pleased to direct the respondent to award such three gold medals in such place in which more than 25,000 peoples are there as in the case of convocation or either create such occasion for the awarding of such gold medals.
(C) Be pleased to award the cost of this petition and such other costs as the petitioner has suffered irreparable loss."
(D) ....
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner herein had cleared the Third Year LL.B. (Special) Course by securing 63.20% marks. It is the case of the petitioner that he had secured 632 marks in aggregate out of total 1000 marks in the above Course and had, thereby, become eligible to get Gold Medal from the respondent-University since he fulfilled all the requisite criteria for the grant of Gold Medal. He, therefore, made representations to the respondent-University for conferring the same. However, the same was not done by the University. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the record that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria required for the award of Gold Medal inasmuch as the petitioner has not obtained the highest marks from amongst the regular students of Third Year LL.B. (Special) Course. The petitioner has secured 632 marks out of 1000 marks whereas, another candidate named, Shri Nirav Sharma, has secured 635 marks out of 1000 marks. Further, the recommendation on which the petitioner has placed reliance has been given by the In-charge Officer of the University and not the competent authority and therefore, the same could not be considered as due recommendation.
4. In view of the above discussion, I find no merits in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top