University directed to allow defence personnel to complete LLB degree despite span period rules violation

Delhi HC directed University of Delhi to allow petitioner to complete LLB degree by appearing in remaining Jurisprudence-II examination of VI term. University had refused permission citing span period rules. Court held that while readmission doesn't make span period rules inapplicable, defence personnel deserve special consideration due to service exigencies. Court exercised Article 226 jurisdiction, noting universities haven't provided longer span periods for defence personnel despite their disadvantaged position in education. Petition allowed with direction to permit examination subject to compliance with formalities.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Refusal of permission to take supplementary examination.
2. Application of "span period" for completing the LLB course.
3. Grant of "special chance" and its limitations.
4. Consideration of defense personnel's service in educational policies.
5. Exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal of Permission to Take Supplementary Examination:

The petitioner challenged the refusal by the University of Delhi to allow him to take a supplementary examination for the subject Jurisprudence-II of the VIth term of the LLB program. The petitioner had initially joined the LLB course in 2002, completed the first two years, and appeared for the Vth term examination in December 2004. However, due to joining the Indian Military Academy in January 2005, he could not complete the VIth term. Upon being posted back to Delhi in 2013, the petitioner sought to complete his degree, including taking the supplementary exam for a paper he failed in the Vth term.

2. Application of "Span Period" for Completing the LLB Course:

The University of Delhi's regulations, under the Delhi University Act, 1922, prescribe a "span period" of six years for completing the three-year LLB course. The petitioner's span period expired in 2008. The University had earlier allowed special chances beyond the span period on a case-by-case basis but ceased this practice with a notification dated 10th October 2012. The petitioner's case was considered under a subsequent notification dated 14th March 2013, which allowed a one-time special chance for students to clear backlog papers. The petitioner was granted permission to appear in the Vth term exam and was re-admitted to the VIth term, where he cleared four out of five papers.

3. Grant of "Special Chance" and Its Limitations:

The petitioner was granted a special chance to clear his backlog under the 14th March 2013 notification, with a clear stipulation that it would be the last opportunity. Despite clearing the Vth term, the petitioner failed one paper in the VIth term, leading to the denial of further opportunities. The University contended that the special chance was a one-time opportunity, and no further chances could be granted.

4. Consideration of Defense Personnel's Service in Educational Policies:

The court recognized the petitioner's military service as a significant factor. The interruption in his education was due to his commitment to national service, including postings in Jammu & Kashmir and receiving several military honors. The court noted that defense personnel are often at a disadvantage in education due to their service commitments. The Supreme Court has previously acknowledged the need for special considerations for defense personnel in educational policies, emphasizing the importance of recognizing their sacrifices and contributions.

5. Exercise of High Court's Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

The High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasized its power to grant relief to serve the ends of justice. The court cited precedents where relief was granted despite the absence of a legal right, to address injustice or arbitrariness. The court found that denying the petitioner the opportunity to complete his education would be unjust, given his service to the nation and the importance of education as a fundamental right and element of individual dignity. Consequently, the court directed the University to allow the petitioner to take the remaining examination for Jurisprudence-II, subject to compliance with requisite formalities.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the petition, directing the University of Delhi to permit the petitioner to complete his LLB degree by taking the pending examination. Additionally, the court instructed the University to consider whether exceptions for defense personnel should be incorporated into the span period rules, reflecting the special regard due to those who serve the country.

---