'Deplorable': Allahabad HC Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On Lucknow University For Wrongfully Withholding Student's 3rd Yr Results, Ruining Her Future
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on Lucknow University for passing arbitrary orders against the petitioner-student ruining her career.Observing that the order of the cancellation of her examination of 2009 was passed in 2012 but was never communicated to the petitioner, Justice Alok Mathur held that “The matter directly pertains to the educational future...
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on Lucknow University for passing arbitrary orders against the petitioner-student ruining her career.
Observing that the order of the cancellation of her examination of 2009 was passed in 2012 but was never communicated to the petitioner, Justice Alok Mathur held that
“The matter directly pertains to the educational future of the student, who was deprived from sitting in the examinations of the B.Sc. 3rd year and even pursuing further education, to which the candidate may have been entitled. The action of the Lucknow University in not only in violation of principle of nature justice but has deleterious effect on the future of the candidate and such an action is deplorable.”
Factual Background
In 2009, petitioner was a B.Sc. 3rd year student when she had appeared in the examinations. Even though the results were declared, petitioner's results were withheld on alleged manipulation of answer sheets in 6 subjects. The respondent University passed no orders regarding the scores of the petitioner or her alleged misconduct.
In 2010, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking her to respond to the allegations. Even though petitioner submitted a reply, no decision was communicated to her. Examination Committee, in 2012, cancelled the examination undertaken by the petitioner. Since this decision was not communicated to her, petitioner could not appear in the examination for the year 2012-13.
In 2014, when the petitioner approached the High Court, the University stated that an order had already been passed where it was stated that petitioner was guilty of misconduct. Against this order, petitioner again approached the High Court.
High Court Observations
The Court observed that the Committee relied on mere “possibility” of answer sheets being tampered with, however, no fact-finding inquiry was conducted for the same. It was observed that the order of the Examination Committee was based on surmises and conjectures.
The Court observed that in the 2014 order of the Committee it was specifically stated that the cancellation order of 2009 examination was never communicated to the petitioner and an inquiry must be instituted for the lapses on part of the University Authorities. The Court observed that nowhere the University had stated that any such inquiry has been conducted.
The Court held that the no material was supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice in support of the vague allegations made against her. Further, it was held that
“Merely passing of the order is not sufficient to hold a person guilty during an inquiry but it is equally essential and mandatory that such an order should in fact be communicated to the delinquent at the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings. Non-communication of the order renders the same non-est and non-existing and no action can be taken in furtherance of the order which has not been communicated to the party concerned.”
Accordingly, the order impugned was quashed to the extent it cancelled the papers of the petitioner of examinations held in 2009 and upheld the part which directed inquiry against the erring authorities.
The Court held that the action of the University of passing order 3 years after the alleged incident deprived the student of her future education. The Court held that action of the University of “deplorable”.
In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanswamy and sons and others where the Supreme Court laid down purposes for imposition of cost. One such purpose, as per the Apex Court, is to “compensate the other party for the delay and the inconvenience caused.” Relying on the aforesaid decision, Justice Mathur imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on Lucknow University as compensation towards the inconvenience caused to the petitioner.
Case Title: Priyanka Dubey vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Higher Edu.Civil Sectt.And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 445 [WRIT - C No. - 1007064 of 2015]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 445