The Rajasthan High Court is examining a dispute involving a student of the National Law University, Jodhpur, who alleged that he was denied two gold medals shortly before the university’s convocation ceremony despite having been officially recommended and approved for the awards. The Court has sought instructions from the university regarding the issuance of the student’s mark sheet and the circumstances surrounding the controversy.
The petitioner, Anuj Shukla, was a student in the LL.M. programme specializing in Intellectual Property Rights Laws. According to the petition, he had been recommended for the Smt. Vandana Devendra Mehta Gold Medal, awarded to the student securing the highest CGPA in the LL.M. (IPR Laws) programme, and the Nani A. Palkhivala Memorial Gold Medal, awarded to the student obtaining the highest CGPA across all LL.M. streams. These recommendations were made by the university’s Gold Medal Committee and were subsequently approved by the Academic Council before the convocation ceremony.
The petitioner stated that only a few minutes before the convocation began, he was informed by the Controller of Examinations that he would not be receiving the medals because he had sought re-evaluation of a first-semester answer sheet. He claimed that this was the first occasion on which any objection regarding his eligibility had been communicated to him. According to the petition, he was neither given prior notice nor afforded an opportunity to explain his position before the decision was implemented.
The dispute arose from a paper in Research Methodology. The petitioner stated that he had originally been awarded 82 marks out of 100. After re-evaluation, the marks were allegedly reduced to 65. However, according to him, the university continued to issue grade sheets reflecting the original marks of 82. Based on those marks, his cumulative score and CGPA remained higher than those of the student who ultimately received the medals. The petition asserted that even the Gold Medal Committee had recorded that he possessed a higher CGPA than the other student.
According to the petitioner, despite the Academic Council’s approval of his candidature, both medals were awarded to another student during the convocation ceremony. He relied on information obtained under the Right to Information Act to contend that a fresh meeting of the Gold Medal Committee was convened on the morning of the convocation after objections were raised regarding the proposed award of the medals. During that meeting, an interim decision was allegedly taken to award the medals to another student. The petitioner claimed that this decision received approval from the Vice Chancellor only after the convocation had already concluded.
The petition argued that under the university’s governing framework, the authority to confer gold medals rests with the Academic Council. According to the petitioner, once the Academic Council had approved his candidature, the decision could not be altered without placing the matter before the same body. He contended that the subsequent reversal of the decision was procedurally improper and lacked legal authority.
Apart from the issue of the medals, the petitioner also raised grievances concerning his academic records. He alleged that a fresh statement of marks was issued to him after the convocation but carried an earlier date. According to the petition, he returned the document and requested issuance of a correctly dated statement of marks. He claimed that this request was not acted upon by the university.
The petitioner further alleged that he was denied an effective opportunity to present his case before the decision affecting his eligibility for the medals was taken. He maintained that the process lacked fairness and transparency and that significant decisions concerning his academic standing were made without giving him a chance to be heard.
The matter came before the Rajasthan High Court, which issued notice in the case. Subsequently, the matter was placed before another Bench that directed the university to complete instructions regarding the issue of the petitioner’s mark sheet and the related issues raised in the petition. The Court sought clarification from the university regarding the allegations and listed the matter for further consideration.
The dispute involves questions relating to the validity of the university’s decision-making process, the authority responsible for determining eligibility for gold medals, the effect of re-evaluation on a student’s academic standing, and the legality of altering medal awards after approval by the Academic Council. It also concerns issues relating to the issuance and correction of academic records, including mark sheets and statements of marks.
The High Court has not yet delivered a final decision on the merits of the case. The proceedings remain pending, with the university required to place its response and instructions on record concerning the petitioner’s grievances. The outcome of the case will determine whether the actions taken by the university in relation to the medals and academic records were consistent with the applicable rules, regulations, and statutory provisions governing the institution.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.