- (1.) Both the petitioners have a common case to contend that they be given one more mercy chance to take the examinations in the subjects failed by them in the last year of BAMS course. The pleas were rejected on the ground that the Rule in clause 9(b) of the Statute provide for "a mercy chance" and since such a chance has been already availed by the petitioners, there is no scope for offering one more chance.
(2.) The petitioners would cite two instances when a second mercy chance had been provided to students in the same course. One was an instance of Ms.Jaspreet Kaur, who had been granted a second mercy chance and another was Amarpreet Kaur, who had also been provided with similar additional chance. The University would explain both these instances as extraordinary, the former being a polio affected person, who had been dependent on others for even the normal routine activities and with such a serious physical ailment, the student required relaxation of the Rule. As regards the latter, the contention is that the student was studying in a college which was originally affiliated to Baba Farid University which may have exercised such a discretion but the respondent-University itself had not provided for such a course of a second mercy chance to any other student. The counsel would further contend that the respondent-University cannot be compelled to do what yet another University did and treat it as a precedent that would bind the respondent-University. He would also state that if they had committed a mistake in one case, it need not be repeated again by the respondents.
(3.) The issue of the effect of the provision for a mercy chance was considered by the Division Bench of this court in Rahul Kapoor Versus Guru Ravidas Ayurved University and another in LPA No.100 of 2014, decided on 11.03.2014. That case, however, was not with reference to the candidate seeking for the second mercy chance. It was a case where even a single mercy chance had been denied and the court was in that circumstance dealing with the provision relating to the discretion vested with the Vice Chancellor to give a mercy chance. The Division Bench reasoned that the clause providing for a mercy chance was neither a part of the Ordinance nor so sacrosanct for the affiliate University to apply strictly unmindful of the difficulties that a student could face. The Division Bench was taking a pragmatic view of the situation of a person who had spent over 3 years of study which would become a deadloss if the discretion had not been exercised. Ideally when a person comes to court and seeks for direction from the court and the court is apprised of also the limitations that exist for the University to grant of second mercy chance if a decision had been taken at the same time, there would be no loss for a person to even expect that any other option was available. If, on the other hand, the student is held out an olive branch, as it were and given the benefit of taking the examination as well without making it provisional, it evokes a sense of expectation that he will come by whatever benefit that the second chance yielded to him. In this case, this court had allowed for the exercise to be taken by the respective students to made it subject to the final outcome in the writ petitions. The counsel for the petitioners have no substantial argument to make except that they have written the exams and if the results are announced and if they have passed, they will make no further plea, if they had not been successful. It is not really a matter of court's discretion for allowing any number of opportunities. Curtains must be drawn somewhere and if the Regulations of the University prescribes a chance to be given mercy for a student, it ought to normally stop there. It could leave no scope for judicial intervention. However, the courts are always seen as a last resort if the chips are down and the parties are driven to wall. In a desperate situation for a student who had a dangerous prospect of losing all the years of study by his inability to clear the subjects in a certain number of attempts which were permitted and he had been given a chance, but he was pleading for yet another chance, it is truly a mercy plea that is not founded in law. The court's attempt is to temper hard situations with mercy and so be it in this case. The respective petitioner will have the benefit of the declaration of results for the examinations that they have taken by the orders of the court. Be it known to the petitioners that no further opportunity is possible and the results are announced with no scope for any further attempt.;