1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3738 OF 2010 Prachi Sharadrao Giri : Petitioner versus University of Pune & ors. : Respondent. Mr. M T Narvekar for the Petitioner, Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/by Mr. M G Kulkarni for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, R. M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 07th May 2010 P.C. : 1 Heard counsel for the parties. 2 Pursuant to the directions given in the order passed by this Court dated 8 th October 2009 in Writ Petition no.6703 of 2009, enquiry was conducted in which the Petitioner as well as the college was given opportunity to produce relevant material in support of the stand taken by the Petitioner or otherwise. The said enquiry was conducted by one man committee i.e. Deputy Registrar. He has found that the material produced before him clearly revealed that the assignments were not submitted by the Petitioner before the date of examination. As a mater of fact, the Petitioner was required to submit her assignments on or before 10 th March 2008 which formality was complied by other students. Nonetheless, the Petitioner was allowed to appear for the examination as her examination form was forwarded by the college in anticipation that before the date of 2 examination the Petitioner would ensure that the assignments were submitted which in turn could be forwarded to the University for evaluation. However, till the Petitioner appeared for the examination, the assignments of the Petitioner were never submitted either to the college or forwarded to the University. 3 Considering all these aspect the committee rejected the claim of the Petitioner but at the same time made recommendation to allow the Petitioner to fill up the form for examination to be held in March/April 2010 on payment of necessary fees, and the assignments which were already prepared by the Petitioner to be submitted to the college which in turn would forward the same to the University for evaluation. This recommendation has been approved by the Vice- Chancellor of University. 4 Before us, the first grievance of the Petitioner is that the committee has not considered all the materials which were placed before it. We are not impressed by this argument. The crucial question which was to be answered by the committee is whether the assignments were not submitted by the Petitioner before appearing in the examination. In so far as that fact is concerned, no material has been brought to our notice that the Petitioner did submit the assignments to the college which were forwarded to the University before the Petitioner could appear in the examination. It cannot be disputed that the assignment is an integral part of the course and the marks secured for the said assignments are relevant for considering as to whether a student has passed or failed in the given year. The formality of submitting assignments therefore is not an empty 3 formality. As is noticed by the committee, it is indisputable that the assignments were never submitted by the Petitioner before appearing in the examination. Thus understood, the fact that the Petitioner appeared in the examination would not take the matter any further. In any case, there is no substance in the grievance of the Petitioner that all the relevant material has not been considered by the Committee. 5 To overcome this position, the counsel for the Petitioner has heavily placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Krishnan v/s The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra reported in (1976) 1 SCC 311, in particular on the exposition in para 6 thereof. The observations in the said decision, in our view, have no application to the fact situation of the present case. In that case, there was no requirement of submitting the assignments before appearing in the examination which assignments are treated as integral part of the course and marks secured for the said assignments are reckoned for treating the student as passed or failed in the given year. In that case, the Petitioner was allowed to appear for the examination inspite of the fact that he had failed to attend the prescribed course of lectures. Considering the provisions of Kurukshetra University, the Apex Court opined that having allowed the student to appear in the examination, it is too late for the University to non-suit the candidate on the ground that he had not attend the prescribed course of lectures. 6 Suffice it to observe that this decision is of no avail to the Petitioner . In our opinion, the University has taken a lenient view of 4 the matter in spite of the observations made by the Committee in the report dated 20 th January 2010. 7 Hence this Petition must fail and the same is dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)