Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Aug 26: High Court today observed that it amounts to interference with the course of justice when a case is pending before the court of law and authorities take action in the matter.
The High Court was hearing two writ petitions filed by a law student in which she had challenged the action of Kashmir University authorities during re-evaluation of her answer scripts. The authorities issued date sheet for fresh examination of the petitioner along with other students when the matter was in the court.
The Court of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey took serious note of KU authorities and termed it as a very serious in nature and insignificant in the eyes of law.
“It is, of course, a matter of very serious nature if any authority, whosoever that may be, takes an action during the pendency of a writ petition, which, in any manner, has the effect of interfering with the course of justice in a cause of which the court is seized of, more-so which goes against the letter and spirit of an interim order and in that event, such action would be inconsequential and non-est in the eyes of law”, read the judgment of Justice Magrey.
Court on final conclusion said that it was unreasonable on the part of the University to have issued the date sheet scheduling the fresh examination of the petitioner and the six other students and requiring them to appear in the examination afresh. It deserves to be quashed. “The writ petitions, therefore, deserve to be allowed to the extent, in the matter and in the terms as mentioned”, High Court said.
After hearing both parties at length with the support of law, High Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the KU authorities
Court quashed the proposal and recommendation of University and the approval accorded thereto by its higher authorities. Court also quashed the subsequent action taken by University pursuant to such approval, of sending the answer scripts for fresh re-evaluation to the Examiner outside the Department of Law and the re-evaluation done by such Examiner.
Petitioner has raised her grievance that during the pendency of her first writ petition, Controller of Examinations put up a proposal before Vice Chancellor suggesting an action alleged to be antithetic to the mandate of the express provisions of Statute 42, more so during the pendency of her earlier writ petition and contrary to the interim direction of the Court.
According to the petitioner, instead of complying with the directions and least minding about the orders of the Court, respondent-KU submitted a note for making two proposals therein.
Vice Chancellor in his personal affidavit before the court stated that the order of re-evaluation was passed by him and at that time he had no knowledge about the pendency of the writ petition or of any order passed by the Court.
“In the instant case, the impugned decision is not based on consideration of merits of the matter, but on impulsive and extraneous considerations. Secondly, it is not a case where the Statutes did not provide for any remedy or mechanism to deal with the problem; in fact, the relevant Statute takes due care of the situation that was present in the case, i.e., there was a difference / variation between the marks awarded by the first Examiner and the second Examiner. So the question of existence of any extra ordinary situation or exercising any emergency powers, if at all, conferred, would not arise. Thirdly, as would be shown hereafter, the re-evaluation conducted pursuant to the impugned decision has been totally defective and has led to adding to and multiplying the injustice and agony already meted out to the students”, Justice Magrey said.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel