Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27791 of 2018
Petitioner :- Suneel Yadav And 6 Others Respondent :- The Vice Chancellor U.P. University Of Medical Science And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar Pandey,Ajay Kumar Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent :- Rohit Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rohit Pandey appearing for the respondents.
The petitioners have approached this Court alleging that they had taken admission for B. Optometry, BPT and BRIT. The University held examination in the month of June, 2017 and declared the result in December 2017. All the petitioners were declared failed. The petitioners were thereafter permitted to take admission in the second year subject to conditions that they passed the supplementary examination. Such supplementary examination was conducted in February, 2018. The petitioners were again declared failed. The petitioners thereafter gave representation to the Head of the Department for "Re-supplementary examination".
The petitioners also approached this Court simultaneously by filing Writ-C No. 23692 of 2018 (Suneel Yadav & 7 others Vs. The Vice- Chancellor, U.P. University of Medical Sciences, Saifai, Etawah & 2 others). This Court disposed of the writ petition on 18.7.2018 with a direction to the Examination Controller to consider and decide their representation.
Now by the impugned order dated 4.8.2018, their representation has been rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners says that the University is prone to arbitrariness in exercise of its power and in a similar case with respect to some other student, he was declared initially passed and thereafter failed.
However, this Court is of the opinion that if some arbitrariness has been reflected in the action of the University with respect to some other students, the same cannot be said to be a valid ground for interference in the order impugned in this writ petition.
I have carefully perused the order dated 4.8.2018.
The Examination Controller has referred to the Statutes of the University and the Regulations framed therein where there is no such provision to hold a "Re-supplementary examination".
Under the statutory provisions, there being no provision for allowing the petitioners to appear in "Re-supplementary Examination", their applications have been rejected This Court cannot issue a mandamus to the Authorities to act against the provisions of law. Law in this regard has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Chand Hemraj Vs. Lieutenant Governor Of Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh 1971 (2) SCC 74.
This Court therefore finds no good ground for showing interference in the order impugned.
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Arif