Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost on Lucknow University for “Ruining the Career” of Student Due to Administrative Negligence

24 August 2024 3:59 PM

By: sayum


High Court criticizes the university’s failure to follow due process and uphold principles of natural justice in handling the case of alleged answer sheet manipulation.

The Allahabad High Court, in a recent ruling, imposed a cost of ₹2 lakh on Lucknow University for its gross negligence in handling the case of Priyanka Dubey, a B.Sc. student whose examination results were withheld due to unsubstantiated allegations of answer sheet manipulation. The Court, in its judgment, highlighted the university’s failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice, leading to significant detriment to the student’s academic and professional future.

Priyanka Dubey, a student in her third year of B.Sc. at Lucknow University, appeared for her examinations in 2009. However, her results were withheld on allegations that her answer sheets in six subjects had been manipulated. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue, no official order was communicated to her regarding the alleged misconduct until a show cause notice was issued in February 2010. Dubey responded to the notice, denying all allegations. However, the university failed to communicate the outcome of the inquiry for over two years. When a decision was finally made in May 2012 to cancel her 2009 exams, it was never communicated to Dubey, preventing her from appearing in subsequent examinations. It was only after Dubey filed a writ petition that the university’s decision came to light.

The High Court, presided over by Justice Alok Mathur, strongly criticized the university for conducting the inquiry in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that despite issuing a show cause notice, the university did not provide Dubey with the necessary materials, such as copies of the answer sheets or the inquiry report, which were crucial for her defense. The Court remarked, “Mere possibility can never be a substitute for coming to a definitive conclusion,” and held that the university’s actions were based on mere presumption rather than concrete evidence.

The Court further emphasized that the non-communication of the order dated May 21, 2012, rendered it non-est (non-existent) in law. Justice Mathur referenced precedents set by the Supreme Court, stating that an administrative order must be communicated to the affected party to be legally enforceable. The failure to inform Dubey of the order not only deprived her of the opportunity to appeal but also effectively barred her from continuing her education, thereby “ruining her career.”

The judgment underscored the importance of due process in administrative proceedings, particularly in educational institutions where the future of students is at stake. The Court ruled that the university’s actions were arbitrary and illegal, and that the subsequent order issued in November 2014, which upheld the cancellation of Dubey’s exams, was also invalid since it was based on the earlier non-communicated and illegal order.

Justice Mathur, in a critical observation, stated, “The action of the Lucknow University in not only [being] in violation of the principle of natural justice but has [also] a deleterious effect on the future of the candidate and such an action is deplorable.” He further added, “The manner of conducting the inquiry by the Lucknow University in the present case was clearly illegal and arbitrary.

The Allahabad High Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder to educational institutions about the necessity of upholding procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice in administrative matters. By imposing a significant cost on Lucknow University, the Court has sent a clear message about the consequences of negligence in handling the careers of students. This ruling is likely to impact how universities across the country manage allegations of misconduct and underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting the rights of students.

Date of Decision: July 10, 2024​.

Priyanka Dubey v. State of U.P. & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News