HC notice on plea alleging misrepresentation of course by OP Jindal University

The petitioner student, Nipun Gupta, a Faridabad resident, has alleged in his plea that university at all times portrayed the course in question to be LLB (Hons) degree programme whereas degree awarded to him on completion was only of LLB.

The Punjab and Haryana high court has sought response from Bar Council of India and OP Jindal Global University, Sonepat, among others, on a plea alleging misrepresentation of a law course run by the varsity.

The bench of justice Lisa Gill and Parmod Goyal has sought response by December 16. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The petitioner student, Nipun Gupta, a Faridabad resident, has alleged in his plea that university at all times portrayed the course in question to be LLB (Hons) degree programme whereas degree awarded to him on completion was only of LLB. “All throughout the petitioner, had been made to believe that it is LLB (Hons) course that has been offered, even Identity card issued to petitioner mentioned the course to be LLB (Hons.). When confronted, University has chosen to take a stand that it is due to mere typographical error in the prospectus as well as other places that degree is mentioned to be LLB (Hons),” the petition said.

The bench of justice Lisa Gill and Parmod Goyal has sought response by December 16.

Gupta graduated from the university and had taken admission in the law course in 2022. His counsel, Nikhil Ghai had told the court the petitioner and his batchmates relied upon the prospectus in making their decision to join the University, and the now university is claiming that such a programme never existed, having “induced” the petitioner through their official documents.

Ghai, before the bench had referred to various official documents and communications from university—including the fee schedule, offer letters, reply notes, and the institution’s three-year refund policy— stating that these documents indicated that the petitioner was enrolled in LLB (Hons) degree.

It was also claimed during hearing that during the course the university never issued any official notification, circular, or communication, either to the petitioner or to his batchmates—suggesting that the course title or nomenclature had been altered.