Allahabad High Court Awards Rs 5 Lakh Compensation To 35-Yr Old Law Student Who Was Admitted By Fault On College's Part

The Allahabad High Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a 35 year old law student who was granted admission in Law College against the rules of the brochure and was cancelled after being successful in first semester examination.

Observing that the student had not played fraud on the College, the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Vikas Budhwar observed,

“It is rather amazing that the Law College has acted not only in a careless and reckless manner but also exhibited a conduct other than bona fide just in order to enrol and admit students in order to charge fees playing with their future.”

Case Background

Appellant-petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking reevaluation of his answer sheets for the first semester examination of the LLB course for the year 2019-20 as though the petitioner had appeared in the same, he was not awarded marks to his satisfaction.

The writ court directed the petitioner to approach the University and apply for viewing of answer sheets. Assurance was given by the counsel for the University that petitioner would be supplied copies if he applies for the same.

Thereafter, though on re-evaluation his marks were increased from 36 to 42, he was not allowed to appear in viva voice for the second year examination. Petitioner again approached the writ Court where the University took a stand that the admission of the petitioner and 54 others was illegal and their admissions were cancelled.

Petitioner challenged this order in a separate writ petition which was dismissed on grounds that rules of admission were not challenged and therefore, there was no illegality in the order cancelling his admission. Against the order of the writ Court, petitioner filed an intra-court appeal.

Counsel for appellant argued that the student cannot be penalized for the fault of University. It was argued that the appellant is a meritorious student who had been successful in his first semester examination. It was argued that though the admission brochure stated that undergraduate degree of the candidate should be of 2016 or afterwards, but having a degree of 2008 did not disentitle the appellant from admission in 3-year LLB course.

Per contra, counsel for Prabha Devi Bhagwati Prasad Vidhi Mahavidhayalay, Anantpur, Harpur-Budhahat, Gorakhpur (Law College) affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur argued that the appellant knowing the terms of brochure had posed as having completed Undergraduate degree in 2015 despite being a graduate of 2008. It was argued that such conduct warranted no relief from the Court.

High Court Verdict

The Court held that the relief sought regarding being permitted to give second year examination could not be awarded to the petitioner as his admission was against the rules laid down in the brochure. Further, since the rules of admission were not challenged by the appellant-petitioner, the same could not be gone into on merits.

Regarding the question of appellant's entitlement to compensation, the Court observed that the Writ Court had awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000 which was not challenged by the University. It was observed that the Law College being the one that processes applications and forwards it's recommendations to the University for grant of admission, the Law College was at fault.

When asked, the counsel for Law College stated that the College was not in a position to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation. However, while granting the said compensation, the Court observed that

“We have bestowed our consideration on the said aspect and we find that once it is admitted to the Law College that the appellant-writ petitioner had not practised fraud and he submitted all the relevant documents and was accorded admission due to the fault of the Law College then in order to compensate the appellant-writ petitioner for jeopardizing his academic career the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be awarded as monetary compensation is reasonable and not excessive.”

Accordingly, the order of the writ court was modified only to that extent and no direction was issued permitting the appellant-petitioner to appear in the second year examination.

Case Title: Ajay Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 937 of 2024]

Counsel for Appellant: Km. Anjana, Sarveshwari Prasad

Counsel for Respondent : Rajiv Gupta, Grijesh Tiwari, Nitin Chandra Mishra

Click Here To Read/Download Order