University Must Expeditiously Decide Special Backlog Examination Request, but Grant Remains Discretionary.

The petitioners, fourth-year B.E. students, had pending first-year backlog subjects and sought a special summer semester or supplementary examination.

Their request, dated 8 September 2026, was forwarded by the Principal of the National Institute of Engineering to the Registrar of VTU, with the Institute stating that it was willing to conduct the examination if approved.

The students relied on a special examination opportunity afforded to similarly placed students in the previous year.

They sought a direction requiring VTU to consider their representation.

The Court disposed of the petition at the preliminary-hearing stage.

1. Whether VTU should be directed to consider the petitioners’ request for a special summer semester or supplementary examination for their pending first-year subjects

2. Whether VTU could consider granting such an opportunity, having regard to the prior examination opportunity and its discretion under the applicable regulations

Article 226 of the Constitution provides the High Court with jurisdiction to issue writs and appropriate directions.

The Court also referred to the B.E. academic regulations’ vertical progression requirements, under which specified first-year failing grades may prevent progression to the third or seventh semester.

It identified no statutory provision, precedent, or specific regulation requiring VTU to conduct a special examination; instead, it directed VTU to decide the request as permissible under its rules and any applicable discretionary power.

The Court noted that the Institute had forwarded the students’ request and was willing to conduct the proposed special semester, and that a similar opportunity had reportedly been given in the previous year.

These circumstances warranted consideration by VTU, but did not establish an entitlement to a special examination.

Accordingly, the Court left the decision to the University, subject to what was permissible under the applicable regulations and any discretion vested in it.

It observed that any discretionary decision to accommodate the request would not constitute a precedent in other matters.