SHALINI versus KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 18-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
SHAUN! 
A 
v. 
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY AND ANR. 
JANUARY 18, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Kurukshetra University Act 1986: 
Sec.11(5)-0rdinance JV of University Calendar-Vol.11 Clause 18-
Applicability of-Re-evaluation application can be submitted within 20 days C 
of the declaration of the result or within 20 days of the despatch of the 
detailed marks card by the University, whichever is later-Applicant can take 
advantage of extended period of limitation calculated from one of the two 
events marking commencement of limitation, whichever occurs later-Applicant 
cannot be faulted for the delay on the part of University in declaring the D 
result, despatching the detailed marks card and re-evaluating the answer 
books. 
Petitioner/appellant appeared in B.Sc. (Home Science) Part-I 
-
.• 
examination conducted by Respondent University, held in the month of 
April, 2000 and was declared failed. She applied for re-evaluation. E 
However, University rejected the application for want of original detailed 
marks card. Subsequently, on receipt of detailed marks card on 6.11.2000, 
.. 
she again submitted re-evaluation application enclosing original detailed 
marks card therewith. On re-evaluation, she was declared passed having 
secured 56% marks and received the result on 20.1.2001 but denied 
admission in B.Sc. second year on the ground of inordinate delay. She F 
moved High Court by filing a writ petition. High Court issued rule nisi 
and directed the respondent-University, by an interim order to grant her 
provisional admission. She was allowed to attend classes regularly but she 
was allowed to appear in the examination as a private candidate and her 
result was not declared. She moved an application in the pending writ G 
petition fer declaring her result. High Court dismissed the writ petition 
on the ground of submission of re-evaluation application beyond the period 
of limitation provided in Sec. 11(5) of the Kurukshetra University Act, 
1986. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
347 
H 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. An application for re-evaluation to be valid has to be 
accompanied by original detailed marks card and the full fee, and 
submitted in the University Officer either within 20 days of the date of 
the declaration of result' or within 20 days of the date of despatch of the 
detailed marks card by the University Office whichever is later. The 
B relevant clause itself provides for an extended period of limitation available 
to an applicant by permitting him to take advantage of one of the two 
events marking commencement of limitation, whichever occurs later. The 
appellant was, therefore, justified in making a prayer for re-evaluation 
within 20 days of the despatch of the detailed marks card. The appellant 
cannot be faulted for the delay on the part of the University in declaring 
C the result, despatching the detailed marks card and re-evaluating the 
appellant's answer books. The appellant has taken all the steps promptly 
and there has not been any delay, remissness or laches on the part of the 
appellant in taking any steps either in approaching the respondent or the 
High Court. (350-E-H( 
D 
1.2. The appellant should be treated as a regular student of B.Sc. 
(H.Sc.) Part II and her result should also be declared treating her as a 
regular student. The appellant shall apply to the Vice-Chancellor/ 
Competent Authority of the University, for admission in B.Sc. (H.Sc.) Pt. 
( 
Ill course of study and invoking power if available under the Act, 
~. -
E Ordinance or statutes governing the University to condone delay in seeking 
admission. Else the appellant shall be entitled to admission in the Pt. Ill 
of the said course, commencing in the next session. (351-C; G( 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 544 of 
2002. 
F 
, 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.2001 of the Punjab and 
,, "" 
Haryana High Court in C.W. No. 1546 of 2001. 
Nidhesh Gupta, Naveen Singh for Ms. S. Janani for the Appellant. 
G 
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Aditya Kumar Choudhary and Bharat Singh for 
U.S. Prasad for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.C. LAHOTI, J. The petitioner, appeared in B.Sc. (Home Science) 
H Part-I examination conducted by Kurukshetra University, the respondent No. I, 
SHALINI v. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 349 
which was held in the month of April, 2000, as a regular student of Govt. A 
) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.