25 Jul. 24: The Allahabad High Court has directed Lucknow University to pay ₹2 lakh in compensation to a third-year B.Sc. student for wrongfully withholding her results, which severely impacted her academic career, as per a report by the Verdictum.
The court criticized the university’s actions, emphasizing the severe consequences on the student’s future. The bench, led by Justice Alok Mathur, observed that there was no concrete evidence of misconduct or answer sheet manipulation by the student, as alleged by the university.
The bench of Justice Mathur said, “No opportunity was given to the petitioner nor there is a definite finding with regard to the culpability of the petitioner…the Lucknow University is responsible for ruining the career of a student.”
“The petition is allowed at the cost of rupees two lakhs, which shall be paid by the respondent University to the petitioner.”
The case revolved around Priyanka Dubey, a B.Sc. third-year student who appeared for her exams in 2009. Despite the declaration of results, her scores were withheld due to alleged manipulation of answer sheets in six subjects. The university failed to provide any scores or issue misconduct orders, leaving the student in academic limbo.
After a show cause notice was issued, the student denied the allegations, but the university did not communicate any decision. The court noted that the university’s failure to communicate the examination committee’s decision rendered the order non-existent and invalid for any further action.
Justice Mathur emphasized, “Non-communication of the order renders the same non-est and non-existing, and no action can be taken in furtherance of the order which has not been communicated to the party concerned.”
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Sethi Auto Service Station vs. DDA and Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab, highlighting the importance of communicating final orders to the concerned parties.
The court concluded that the university’s actions directly affected the student’s educational future, preventing her from completing her B.Sc. third-year exams and pursuing further education.
Advocate Avinash Chandra and Advocate Sukumar Srivastava represented the appellant, while C.S.C. Savitra Vardhan Singh appeared for the respondent.
