Being a meritorious student would not imply student cannot fail: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that the previous merit of a student would not necessarily imply that s/he could not fall in the future (Deepika vs. Kurukshetra University and another). .The Court made the observation while dismissing a Writ petition filed by a Judicial Officer against the Kurukshetra University. .The petitioner had alleged that a racket going was on at the University whereby students were being failed so that the University could earn money by charging fees for re-evaluations..The Court recounted that the petitioner had failed in the subjects of Insurance Law and Law of Banking and Negotiable Instruments. On re-evaluation, she passed the subject of Law of Banking and Negotiable Instruments, but could not pass the subject of Insurance Law. In May 2019, she re-appeared in the said paper, but failed again. The Court noted that re-evaluation also did not help the petitioner. .Advocate RS Dhull, representing the petitioner, argued before the Court that the petitioner was a meritorious student who had secured 72 marks out of 100 in the same subject in her L.L.B examination. He added that the paper in the L.L.M examination was quite simple and thus, the petitioner could not fail..The High Court, however, dismissed the plea on finding that there was no material on record to prove the existence of the racket. In doing so, Justice Sudhir Mittal also note, .The fact that the petitioner was a meritorious student in L.L.B does not mean that her performance cannot fall. Justice Sudhir Mittal .He further recorded,."Admitted, she is currently working as a Judicial Officer and thus, she may not have been able to devote adequate time to her studies. The writ Court cannot examine whether the paper was simple or difficult nor can it opine on the conduct of examiners unless material is placed on record to substantiate the allegations. There is nothing on record to indicate any mala fides. The grievance is based upon apprehensions and thus, cannot be accepted.”Justice Sudhir Mittal.[Read the Final Order here]