The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a Petition filed challenging the communication dated 15.02.2022 passed by the in-charge examination cell/section National Law Institute University , Bhopal.
The petitioner has been denied to appear in the Ex-student examinations which were scheduled to be conducted from 21.02.2022 to 10.03.2022 on the ground that there was an outer limit of eight years to complete B.A.L.L.B (Hons) course.
The petitioner had already completed eight years’ period. Therefore, he could not be granted further extension to complete the course.
The petitioner by making several submissions in the petition has prayed for declaring the Regulation (3) of Regulation 6 r/w sub-regulation (6) of Regulation 14 of the Academic and Examination Regulations Relating to B.A.LL.B. (Hons), 2017 as ultra vires.
The Petition was put before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra who observed that the aforesaid aspect of an outer limit for completion of course was considered by the Courts in a larger number of cases and it has been categorically held that “in absence of any Rule and Regulation with respect to extension of period for completion of course, the same cannot be extended unilaterally”.
For any personal reasons, the extension cannot be provided in absence of any Rules and Regulations.
In the case of Amrith Raj Vs. Registrar Visvesvaraya Technological University reported in 2016 SCC Online Kar 1081, the High Court has held as under:-
It is settled that this Court cannot direct the University to extend the period for completion of the course contrary to the Regulations, even if the University had extended the period for completion of the course to some of the students on the ground of discrimination. Two wrongs do not make a right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case, direction should be given for doing another wrong. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in such c a s e s. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is the existence of similar legal foothold. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is not intended to perpetuate illegalities, but to strike at them. If a person who has a legal right is denied the benefit of it, while others having a similar right are given the benefit of such right, then there is discrimination, and a mandamus may be issued to ensure that he also gets a similar benefit. But, if a person who does not have a right is given a benefit contrary to law, then the illegal act itself will be struck down and there can never be a mandamus to repeat the illegal act to favour others”.
The High Court has gone to the extent i.e the university has extended time for some of the students which is not permissible as per rules and regulations, the same cannot be permitted to be continued as it is settled that negative equality could not be permitted to be continued and no relief on the aforesaid basis can be extended.
Further in the case of Narasimha Bhat Vs. S.V. Registraar reported in 2015 SCC Online Kar 7630, the Court has considered the similar aspect of extension of time to complete their course as the eight years fixed period for completion of the course under the Regulation of the University has expired. The Hon’ble Court came to the conclusion that “Regulation OB 6.2 of the Visvesvaraya Technological University quoted above is intra vires the Visvesvaraya Technological University Act, 1994 and does not of end any of the provisions of the AICTE Act or the constitution. The AICTE Act has not stipulated the maximum duration for completion of the Engineering Course of study. Accordingly, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the Regulation is invalid in law is devoid of merit. No other contention was urged. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions”.
From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear to the Bench that in absence of any Rules and Regulations, no extension of time can be provided. Thus, a prayer made in the petition cannot be extended in view of the fact that the Rules and Regulations do not provide for any extension. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any rule or regulation under which he is claiming relaxation. Therefore, the aforesaid relief cannot be granted under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
“As far as validity of Regulations (3) of Regulation 6 r/w sub-regulation (6) of Regulation 14 of the Academic and Examination Regulations Relating to B.A.LL.B. (Hons), 2017 is concerned, the same has already been upheld by the Court in a large number of cases, therefore, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. Writ Petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed”, the order reads.