Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed by a student seeking permission to complete his MBA course after having dropped out during the fourth semester to prepare for competitive examinations, a Single Judge Bench of Ajay Mohan Goel, J. dismissed the plea. The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to complete the MBA program within the prescribed maximum duration of six years. Consequently, he ceased to be a candidate for the course upon the expiry of this statutory period.
The Court held that a student’s personal decision to prepare for competitive examinations, at the cost of not appearing for semester exams, did not entitle them to an extension of the academic timeline. It further emphasised that professional courses such as the MBA are governed by strict academic schedules, and personal choices cannot be grounds for relaxation of these regulations.
Background
The petitioner completed his B.Tech in Civil Engineering and was appointed as an Executive Trainee Civil in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited in 2013. In 2015, he took admission in MBA in the University, a two-year curriculum, but did not appear in the fourth semester MBA examination held in June, 2017 as he had to appear for the preliminary examination of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services (‘HAS’). He finally cleared it in the third attempt and was appointed as an Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise on 23-1-2020.
The petitioner submitted that he requested for relaxation in time period for completing MBA course but the University rejected it on the ground that there was no provision to grant special chance for degree completion in MBA course after the prescribed period of six years as per Ordinance 10.33 of the First Ordinance of the University. The petitioner further alleged that the University was discriminating between the petitioner and other similarly situated persons who were given time beyond the period prescribed for completion of the post-graduation course.
The University contended that in terms of Ordinance 10.33, the petitioner had to complete the MBA course within a period of 6 years from the date of his admission. He failed to appear for the fourth semester when it was scheduled and did not do so within the extended period as well and thus the request of the petitioner had been rightly rejected and there was no illegality in the conduct of the University.
Analysis and Decision
The Court considered whether the University’s refusal to complete the MBA course was justified or not and acknowledged the fact that as per the Ordinance, the MBA course was to be completed in six years, including the time allowed for late college students. If a candidate failed to complete his MBA within the said period of six years, he ceased to be a candidate of the course concerned.
In the present case, the petitioner did not complete the course within the prescribed timeframe and, therefore, could no longer be considered a candidate for the MBA program after the lapse of six years. The petitioner’s contention that because relaxation was granted in other courses, therefore, the same be extended to the petitioner was thus rejected by the Court. The Court further outlined that upon perusal of the Himachal University Act and the Ordinances, there was no such plenary power vested in the University to grant such relaxation.
The Court opined that a student’s personal decision to prepare for a competitive examination and not appear for semester examination did not entitle him to an extension of the prescribed timeline for completion of a professional course. The petitioner himself chose not to appear in the MBA fourth semester examination, as he intended to prepare for the HAS Examination and that it was his personal choice. It was not the case that those who were preparing for the HAS examination, or any other competent examination, were barred during the period of preparation to participate in any other examination.
The Court, after considering all these factors, dismissed the petition and held that there was no merit in it.
[Mohit Shukla v. Himachal Pradesh University, CWP No. 4779 of 2025, decided on 22-5-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.