Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses Plea By Student Seeking Modification Of Clashing Exam Schedules For Two Degrees Pursued Simultaneously
The Chhattisgarh Excessive Courtroom has dismissed a writ petition filed by a pupil pursuing two tutorial programmes concurrently who sought judicial instructions to amend the examination timetables so that the schedules didn’t conflict.
A Single Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma noticed, “Bearing in mind the truth that the reduction 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… no case is made out for any interference.”
The Petitioner appeared in individual, whereas Advocate Satish Gupta represented the Respondents.
Temporary Info
The Petitioner, showing in individual, submitted that he was concurrently pursuing two levels. He submitted that the examination timetables issued by each universities included 4 topics scheduled on the identical date and time, leading to a direct battle that rendered it unimaginable to attend each.
He argued that he had taken re-admission in accordance with notifications issued by the Respondent universities and contended that the schedules had been framed arbitrarily. He relied on the UGC’s revised pointers permitting the simultaneous pursuit of two levels and submitted that the State of Chhattisgarh had constituted a Job Power for the implementation of the Nationwide Schooling Coverage (NEP) 2020, which inspired inclusive schooling.
The Petitioner additional invoked Article 21 of the Structure of India, contending that his proper to schooling and private liberty was being violated, and urged the Courtroom to remain the examination schedules till disposal of the petition.
Reasoning of the Courtroom
The Courtroom, upon listening to the Petitioner, noticed that no grounds had been made out for invoking its writ jurisdiction. It held that the Petitioner had no locus to demand that examination schedules be altered by judicial path.
The Courtroom famous, “The petitioner has no locus to direct the respondent authorities to make modifications within the last examination timetable for the 2 tutorial programmes…”
The Courtroom discovered no procedural or authorized infirmity justifying interference and held that the scheduling of exams by the schools couldn’t be topic to judicial evaluation within the details of the current case.
Accordingly, the Courtroom dismissed the petition as being devoid of any benefit.
Trigger Title: Satyendra Prakash Suryawanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Impartial Quotation: 2025:CGHC:26112)
Look:
Petitioner: In Individual
Respondents: Advocates Satish Gupta, Prateek Singh Thakur, Hamida Siddiqui
