Prathiba M. Singh DECISION
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been held through video conferencing.
2. The Petitioners in the present case are studying in their fifth semester of the LLB course, in the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (hereinafter as 'DU'). They have challenged the impugned notification dated 22nd August, 2017 and a notice dated 9th October, 2017, by which the method of conducting supplementary examinations has been changed for the final year students. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that they had taken admission in the Faculty of Law, DU in 2017 and the notifications which were issued on 22nd August, 2017 and 9th October, 2017 cannot be applied retrospectively.
3. Mr. Rajesh Tandon, ld. Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the settled position is that the notification ought not to have been given effect to and the rules for conduct of supplementary examinations cannot be changed after the students have already taken admission. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 1944/2018, titled Vikas Bhaskar vs. University Of Delhi And Anr. and submits that Paragraph 26 of the said judgment clearly holds that the amendment ordinance cannot be applied retrospectively. Thus, it is his submission that though the students are in their fifth semesters, they shall be governed by the position which was prevalent prior to the impugned notifications, as was applicable since 2014.
4. Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, ld. counsel for the DU, on the other hand submits that this very notification was challenged before the ld. Single Judge of this Court in Vikas Bhaskar (Supra). He submits that in the said case it has been clarified that the notification would apply with effect from the academic year 2017-18. He further submits that students in this case may have been admitted in July 2017, however the admission process continues till end of August, 2017 and they have been aware of the method of conduct of supplementary examinations since the last three years. Thus, their challenge to the notification is belated as the said notification has taken effect and has been applied in the last two years as well.
5. Mr. Satyam Singh, ld. counsel appearing for Petitioner no. 2, submits that in the reply given by the DU in response to a query raised under the RTI Act, the judgment of Vikas Bhaskar (Supra) cited above, or any other justification, was not given by the DU. He further submits that the retrospective applicability of the notification is not permissible as the students have a legitimate expectation.
6. This court has heard the parties. The issues raised are no longer res integra. The primary grievance of the Petitioners is that the method of conduct of the supplementary examinations has been changed by the DU in August 2017 while they had taken admission in July 2017. It is urged that the method prevalent since 2014 ought to be applied to them as they were already admitted by the time the impugned notifications were issued. The previous method of conducting supplementary examinations and the method of conduct of the supplementary examinations currently prevalent is set out below:
"3. Supplementary Examination: The Faculty of Law recommended that the existing Rule relating to supplementary examinations be replaced with the Supplementary Rule as quoted in Aditya N. Prasad, W.P. (C) No. 7365 of 2011.
7. The question as to the retrospective application of these notifications has been dealt with, in detail, in the case of Vikas Bhaskar (Supra) by a ld. Single Judge of this Court. The court has, while considering writ petitions filed by students who had taken admissions in 2014, held that the impugned notifications would apply from the academic year 2017-18. In the last paragraph of the said judgment, the Court observes that stu........