Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 118801 (ALL)

MUKESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY., HIGHER EDUCATION, U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/584/2025 · 2025-01-21

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3710 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 584 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Higher Education, U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 3. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party no. 4 stands dispensed with. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to college concerned to forward the online examination form of L.L.B. 9th Semester (5 year course) to the University concerned for participation in the examination and for issuance of admit card of the said examination. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to provisionally allow petitioner to appear in the said examination scheduled from 24.01.2025 (now re- scheduled for 01.02.2025) has been sought. 3. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that petitioner had taken admission in the B.A. L.L.B. (5 year course) in C.B. Singh Law College, Sonegaon, Ambedkar Nagar in the academic year 2014-15 whereafter he suffered a grievous injury in a road accident and was unable to study or appear in the examination during the years 2016 to 2019. It is submitted that subsequently petitioner upon recovering participated in the examinations from the year 2020 but again fell seriously ill due to which he could not complete the course in the time stipulated but in view of fact that he has all through out passed the relevant examinations, learned counsel for petitioner submits that some leniency is required to be shown by the opposite parties. 4. Learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 3 has adverted to the ordinance applicable upon University concerned and its affiliated colleges dated 13.11.2017 which indicates that as per the ordinance of prevalent since 2004, a student was granted a maximum of eight years for completion of aforesaid course from the date of admission. The aforesaid time limit was extended to ten years by notification dated 13.11.2017. 5. It thus appears that petitioner having admittedly taken admission in the year 2014-2015 was required to complete the same in ten years by 2024, which he has failed to do. 6. No challenge has been raised to the time limit prescribed by the ordinance applicable upon University and affiliated colleges. The same being binding, relief as sought cannot be granted to petitioner. 7. The petition, therefore, being devoid of merit is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cast. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench