Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Plea Of Student Simultaneously Enrolled In Two Degrees, Seeking Modification Of Clashing Exam Timetables
The Chhattisgarh Excessive Courtroom has dismissed a plea of Satyendra Prakash Suryawanshi— a scholar enrolled in two simultaneous educational programmes, who requested modifications to his last examination timetable to be able to stop a scheduling battle and pleaded conducting the exams at separate occasions or on completely different dates.
The petitioner was pursuing an M.S.W. from Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) College and LL.B from Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya.
On this regard, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma held,
“Taking into account the truth that the aid which has been sought by the petitioner can’t be granted in train of writ jurisdiction and the petitioner has no locus to direct the respondent authorities to make modifications within the last examination timetable for the 2 educational programmes, i.e. M.S.W. from Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) College and LL.B (Half-III, 2ND Semester) from Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya, in view of the thought-about opinion of this Courtroom, no case is made out for any interference.”
Background
The Courtroom was coping with a writ petition searching for path to the respondent universities to amend their respective last examination timetables in order to stop overlapping examination schedules arising from the petitioner’s simultaneous enrolment in two educational programmes.
It was the case of the petitioner that the examination timetables launched by each establishments had been in direct battle, as examinations for 4 of the petitioner’s topics had been scheduled on the identical date and on the similar time. He acknowledged had taken re-admission on account of notifications issued by the Registrar, Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) College (Respondent 2) and the Examination Controller, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya (Respondent 4), which he claimed had been arbitrary.
He additional submitted that the College Grants Fee has issued a revised order concerning pursuit of two levels concurrently, which eliminated all ambiguities. He additional contended that the Authorities of Chhattisgarh has constituted a Job Drive for the implementation of the Nationwide Training Coverage (NEP), 2020 and has directed all state universities to make the curriculum inclusive. Alleging mismanagement and lack of institutional dedication to the implementation of NEP, the petitioner invoked Article 21 of the Structure, asserting that the scheduling battle violated his proper to life and private liberty, and subsequently sought a keep on the examination timetable pending the end result of the petition.
Nonetheless, the Single Decide rejected the plea of the petitioner, holding that the aid sought by him can’t be granted in train of writ jurisdiction and held that the petitioner had no locus standi to direct the respondent authorities to make amendments within the examination schedules.
Case Particulars:
Case Quantity: WPC No. 3068 of 2025
Case Title: Satyendra Prakash Suryawanshi v. State Of Chhattisgarh
