Anoop Dhand and ors. Vs. Controller of Examination and ors.

Anoop Dhand and ors. vs Controller of Examination and ors.

Disposition Petition rejected Court Rajasthan Decided Nov 08, 1996

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/765334

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/765334
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Anshuman Singh, J.
Decided On: Nov 08, 1996
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5486 of 1996
Subject: Constitution
Disposition: Petition rejected

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India - Article 226--Examination timings--It should be left to discretion of University--Schedule & timings neither arbitrary nor illegal--Held, no interference is called for Under Article 226;The timings of the examinations cannot be fixed according to the wish of a candidate appearing in the ex...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Petition rejected

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anoop Dhand and ors.

Respondent

Controller of Examination and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1997WLC(Raj)UC134; 1996(2)WLN631

Excerpt

constitution of india - article 226--examination timings--it should be left to discretion of university--schedule & timings neither arbitrary nor illegal--held, no interference is called for under article 226;the timings of the examinations cannot be fixed according to the wish of a candidate appearing in the examination. fixing of examination time/schedule should be left to the discretion of the university authorities conducting examinations.;the action of the respondents in changing the time schedule and holding the examination between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. is neither arbitrary nor illegal and does not call for any interference by this court;writ rejected - - the petitioners have failed to make out any prima-facie case, the petition is accordingly rejected in limine.anshuman singh, j.1. by means of this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ directing the respondents to conduct the examinations of l.l.m. and p.g. diploma courses in criminology and labour law, 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. it has been stated that previously the respondents had fixed the timings of the examinations from 7.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. but, now the said timing has been changed to 11.00 to 2.00 p.m. it is alleged that since the petitioners are practicing lawyers and they have got cases, it will be inconvenient for them to appear in the examination between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and, therefore, the old time declared by the respondents should be restored and they should be directed to hold examinations between the said period.2. i have heard mr. anoop dhand, mr. anand sharma, mr. ashish minocha, mr. vinayak joshi and mr. vikas jain, petitioners and mr. r.a. katta appearing for the university of rajasthan and after hearing them and perusal of the material on record, i am of the opinion that the high court should be very reluctant while exercising powers under article 226 of the constitution of india in such matters. morever, the timings of the examinations cannot be fixed according to the wish of a candidate appearing in the examination. fixing of examination time/schedule should be left to the discretion of the university authorities conducting examinations. it is not one of those cases where the authorities are not holding the examinations within a reasonable time and it is only in such cases where this court has interfered but in the instant case, in my opinion, the action of the respondents in changing the time schedule and holding the examination between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. is neither arbitrary nor illegal and does not call for any interference by this court. the petitioners have failed to make out any prima-facie case, the petition is accordingly rejected in limine.

Full Judgment

Anshuman Singh, J.

1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ directing the respondents to conduct the examinations of L.L.M. and P.G. Diploma Courses in Criminology and Labour Law, 7 A.M. to 10 A.M. It has been stated that previously the respondents had fixed the timings of the examinations from 7.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. but, now the said timing has been changed to 11.00 to 2.00 p.m. It is alleged that since the petitioners are practicing lawyers and they have got cases, it will be inconvenient for them to appear in the examination between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and, therefore, the old time declared by the respondents should be restored and they should be directed to hold examinations between the said period.

2. I have heard Mr. Anoop Dhand, Mr. Anand Sharma, Mr. Ashish Minocha, Mr. Vinayak Joshi and Mr. Vikas Jain, petitioners and Mr. R.A. Katta appearing for the University of Rajasthan and after hearing them and perusal of the material on record, I am of the opinion that the High Court should be very reluctant while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters. Morever, the timings of the examinations cannot be fixed according to the wish of a candidate appearing in the examination. Fixing of examination time/schedule should be left to the discretion of the University Authorities conducting examinations. It is not one of those cases where the Authorities are not holding the examinations within a reasonable time and it is only in such cases where this Court has interfered but in the instant case, in my opinion, the action of the respondents in changing the time schedule and holding the examination between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. is neither arbitrary nor illegal and does not call for any interference by this Court. The petitioners have failed to make out any prima-facie case, the petition is accordingly rejected in limine.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1996 Same Parties Anoop Dhand and ors. vs Controller of Examination and ors. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge Anshuman Singh, J.

Constitution