Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Chhattisgarh High Court
Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses Plea By Student Seeking Modification Of Clashing Exam Schedules For Two Degrees Pursued Simultaneously
|The Court said that the Petitioner had no locus to seek modification of the final examination timetables of two different universities, and refused to interfere with their schedules under writ jurisdiction.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a student pursuing two academic programmes simultaneously who sought judicial directions to amend the exam timetables so that the schedules did not clash.
A Single Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma observed, “Taking into consideration the fact that the relief which has been sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the petitioner has no locus to direct the respondent authorities to make modifications in the final examination timetable… no case is made out for any interference.”
The Petitioner appeared in person, while Advocate Satish Gupta represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner, appearing in person, submitted that he was simultaneously pursuing two degrees. He submitted that the examination timetables issued by both universities included four subjects scheduled on the same date and time, resulting in a direct conflict that rendered it impossible to attend both.
He argued that he had taken re-admission in accordance with notifications issued by the Respondent universities and contended that the schedules were framed arbitrarily. He relied on the UGC’s revised guidelines allowing the simultaneous pursuit of two degrees and submitted that the State of Chhattisgarh had constituted a Task Force for the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which encouraged inclusive education.
The Petitioner further invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India, contending that his right to education and personal liberty was being violated, and urged the Court to stay the examination schedules until disposal of the petition.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court, upon hearing the Petitioner, observed that no grounds were made out for invoking its writ jurisdiction. It held that the Petitioner had no locus to demand that examination schedules be altered by judicial direction.
The Court noted, “The petitioner has no locus to direct the respondent authorities to make modifications in the final examination timetable for the two academic programmes…”
The Court found no procedural or legal infirmity justifying interference and held that the scheduling of exams by the universities could not be subject to judicial review in the facts of the present case.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition as being devoid of any merit.
Cause Title: Satyendra Prakash Suryawanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:26112)
Appearance:
Petitioner: In Person
Respondents: Advocates Satish Gupta, Prateek Singh Thakur, Hamida Siddiqui