Rahul Deharia Vs Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 4041 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jun 29, 2015

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR

 
Writ Petition No.4041 of 2015

Rahul Deharia & others

Vs.
 
Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki
Vishwavidyalaya & others
,

Present : Hon. Shri Justice Rajendra Menon
  Hon. Shri Justice Sushil Kumar Gupta
     
 
Shri S.K.Rao, learned Senior Advocate with Shri V.K.Pandey,
counsel for petitioners.
Shri Manish Verma, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, G.A., for respondent no.3.

 
Whether approved for reporting:  Yes/No.

 
O R D E R
(29.6.2015)
 
  The petitioners are students who had taken admission

in a Diploma Programme conducted by the Government
Polytechnic College, Respondent no.3. They took admission in
the academic session 2007-08 and 2008-09. The entire course
was of 3 years duration and was to be completed in 3 years.
The petitioners course commenced in the year 2007-08 - 200809.
Accordingly the 3 years period for conclusion of the course
came to an end, however as the petitioners did not complete
the course within the time prescribed, they were extended the
benefit of ATKT. However it is the case of the petitioners that
under the provision of clause 3.3 of Ordinance No.24 as appli-
2 
cable to the University vide Annexure P-1, following conditions
are laid down, which reads as under :- 
“3.3 The maximum duration for passing all the
courses (theory, practicals and Industrial Training
etc.) of the programme shall be SIX years
for 3 years Diploma Programmes, no separate
time will given to students for medical or any
reason, whatsoever. Candidates debarred from
examination due to UFM cases or any other reason
will also have to clear their Diploma programme
in the duration mentioned above.
Names of those candidates, who are unable to
clear their Diploma programme in the stipulated
period will be struck off from the roll list of the
college and enrolment of the University.”
2.  It is said that the petitioners were entitled to complete
the course within a period of 6 years and as the period of 6 years
was not concluded, the petitioners were not given the
benefit of complying with the provision of Allowed to keep term
(ATKT). It is said that the University had granted two compassionate
opportunities to certain students, as has been disclosed to
the petitioners vide Annexure P-3 under the Right to Information
Act and as this benefit of two compassionate opportunities
have not been granted to the petitioners, they have filed
the present petition.
3.  Shri Manish Verma, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 submitted that the petitioners
were given the benefit of ATKT and during the period of 6
years they could not complete the course, accordingly, now
they are not entitled for the benefit. As far as grant of compassionate
opportunities is concerned, Shri Verma submits that
this is a discretion to be exercised by the Executive Council in
accordance with the law and it is not a statutory right, therefore
petitioners cannot be granted compassionate opportunities
as a matter of right.
3
 
4.  We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
As the petitioners have not completed the course during
the maximum period, as provided under clause 3 read with
clause 3.3 of the Ordinance as reproduced hereinabove, this
Court cannot issue any mandamus or grant any further time to
the clear the examination under the ATKT system. However in
case petitioners feel that they are also eligible to be considered
for grant of compassionate opportunities, as was granted to
certain students admitted prior to the year 2006, petitioners
may represent to the Vice Chancellor of the University and it
would be for the Vice Chancellor to place the matter before the
Executive Council and thereafter it would be for the Executive
Council to take a decision, as this is completely within the discretion
of the Executing Council.

5.  Keeping in view aforesaid, we dispose of this petition
with following directions:
In case the petitioners want to seek the benefit of placing
their matter before the Council for permission to appear on
compassionate opportunities, they may represent to the Vice
Chancellor of the University alongwith the certified copy of the
order and the Vice Chancellor shall place the matter before the
Executive Council and it is exclusively for the Executive Council
to take a decision in the matter.
 We may indicate that we have not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the matter with regard to grant of compassionate

opportunities and it is exclusively for the Executing
Council to take a decision. The Executive Council is expected to
take a decision before the next examination of the University
commences so that in case any benefit is given, petitioners can
avail of the opportunities within a reasonable period.
6.  With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands finally
disposed of.

M
 
4
 
RAJENDRA MENON)                            (SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA)  
        JUDGE                                            JUDGE