SC rejects govt employee’s plea to complete law course
Rejecting a man’s petition for a direction to Delhi University (DU) to allow him to complete a law course, Justice Manmohan said “every country has to try to achieve excellence and the highest academic standards.”india Updated: Apr 13, 2016 18:12 IST
A society which tolerates incompetence can never prosper and education standards cannot be allowed to fall, a Delhi High Court has said.
Rejecting a man’s petition for a direction to Delhi University (DU) to allow him to complete law course, Justice Manmohan said “every country has to try to achieve excellence and the highest academic standards.”
“A society that tolerates too much of incompetency can never prosper. Consequently, this court is of the opinion that education standards cannot be allowed to fall to an absolutely ‘low level’,” the bench said.
The order came on a plea filed by Avadhesh Kumar seeking a direction to the university to allow him to complete his LLB course, even beyond the given time span.
He said he was required to complete his LLB course by 2014 within the prescribed period but he could not complete it on time as, being a central government employee, he was being transferred from one place to another.
His lawyer argued that Kumar could not complete the course due to circumstances beyond his control and the university has been granting chances to students to complete the course beyond the stipulated time span.
The counsel also contended that petitioner has availed all the attempts and appeared in all the examinations during the regular course as well as the span period.
The court, in its order, noted that though the law course was to be completed within three years, the petitioner has availed the span period of six years.
“This court is of the opinion that there is a distinction between a student whose study has been interrupted due to joining the Army or a student who wants to study later in life in comparison to those students who cannot clear their exams despite repeatedly appearing in them,” it said.
“Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief,” the court said.