9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of candidature due to criminal case involvement. 2. Shortage of attendance and its impact on examination eligibility. 3. Requirement of permission from superior officers for attending evening law classes. 4. Alleged fraud by the appellant in suppressing information about attendance. Summary: Issue 1: Cancellation of candidature due to criminal case involvement The appellant, a teacher, was initially refused permission to reappear in failed subjects and later denied admission to LL.B. Part III due to involvement in a criminal case. The appellant was acquitted and reinstated, removing the stigma of the criminal case. The respondent argued that the appellant's involvement in the criminal case prevented the Head of Institution from certifying good moral character. Issue 2: Shortage of attendance and its impact on examination eligibility The appellant was short of the requisite attendance in Part I and Part II, as notified by the University. Despite this, the appellant was allowed to appear in the Part II Examination provisionally. The University later canceled his candidature due to the shortage of attendance, which was displayed on the notice board. The appellant argued that once allowed to appear in the examination, his candidature could not be withdrawn as per clause 2(b) of the Kurukshetra University Calendar Vol. I, ordinance X. Issue 3: Requirement of permission from superior officers for attending evening law classes The respondent contended that the appellant needed permission from his superior officers to attend evening law classes, which he did not obtain. The appellant argued that there was no provision in the University statutes requiring such permission. The Court found no justification in the statutes for canceling the candidature based on the lack of permission from superior officers. Issue 4: Alleged fraud by the appellant in suppressing information about attendance The respondent accused the appellant of fraudulently suppressing the fact that he was short of attendance. The Court held that it was the duty of the University and the Head of the Department to scrutinize the admission form for compliance. The appellant did not commit fraud as he did not misrepresent his attendance, and the University had ample opportunity to detect any defects. Judgment: The Supreme Court found that the University had no jurisdiction to cancel the appellant's candidature after allowing him to appear in the examination. The impugned order was quashed, and the University was directed to declare the appellant's LL.B. Part II Examination results and allow him to reappear in the failed subjects of Part I. The appeal was allowed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.
|
