University cannot withhold results for ineligibility after permitting student progression and examinations without prior objection.

The petitioners, students of B.A. LL.B. and B.Com. LL.B. courses, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the respondent University to allow them to appear in the 10th-semester examinations and issue admit cards

On June 5, 2025, the Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioners to participate in the examination to protect their academic interests, with the caveat that results would not be declared without the Court’s leave

The petitioners contended they were permitted to attend classes and appear in previous semesters without any objection from the University

The University opposed the petition, stating the petitioners were ineligible for the 10th semester under applicable Promotion Rules and Ordinances

Whether the University can withhold the declaration of examination results on the ground of academic ineligibility after having permitted the students to pursue the course and appear in previous semester examinations without objection

The Court applied the principle of equity and administrative accountability, holding that where an educational institution permits a student to pursue a course and appear in examinations over a substantial period without demur, it cannot later deny the benefit of such participation due to technical ineligibility

The Court emphasized that students should not suffer for the "inaction or lapse" of the authorities when the students have acted bona fide

The Court observed that the respondent University failed to enforce its Promotion Rules at the appropriate stages, effectively allowing the petitioners to progress through successive semesters and appear in the final 10th-semester examination

The Court reasoned that withholding results at this terminal stage, after years of academic pursuit permitted by the University's own conduct, would result in "manifest injustice" and cause "serious prejudice" to the petitioners' academic careers

While the University argued strictly on the merits of the Promotion Rules, the Court found the "peculiar facts"—specifically the long-term acquiescence of the University—overrode the strict application of those rules in this specific instance

The holding is subject to the condition that if any subjects remain uncleared or other academic requirements are unfulfilled as per rules, the petitioners must satisfy those requirements

The Court clarified that this order was passed in light of the "peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case and shall not be treated as a legal precedent

No order as to costs was made