JYOTI THAKUR & ANR.  Vs IGNOU & ANR.

LPA 14/2021 Page 1 of 4

$~2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decisio n : 11th January , 2021

+ LPA 14/2021
JYOTI THAKUR & ANR. ….. Appellant s
Through: Mr. Mohammad Ali, Mr. Manoj
Goswami, Mr. Vishal Thakur and
Mr. Bipin Choudhary, Advocat es.

versus
IGNOU & ANR. ….. Respondent s
Through: Mr. Apoorv Kurup and Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Advocate for R -2.

CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGMENT

: D. N. PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)

Proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video
conferencing.
CM APPL. 800 /2021 & CM APPL. 802/2021 (both for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications are disposed of.
LPA 14/2021 & CM APPL. 801/2021 (addl docs.)
1. Being aggrieved and f eeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order of
the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2020 in W.P.(C) 9420/2020, original
2021:DHC:94-DB
LPA 14/2021 Page 2 of 4

petitioner s have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Counsel appearing for the appellants (original petitioner s) at the
outset submitted that the appeal is not pressed for appellant no.2 (original
petitioner no.2). Thus, this appeal is being decided only with respect to
appellant no.1.
3. Grievance of appellant No.1 (original petitioner No.1) is that the
learned Single Judge has not directed respondent No.1/IGNOU to grant 16
grace marks to appellant No.1 in Course Code – LSE4L , which is the final
year Biology practical examination , conducted for students undergoing the
Degree Course in BSc (Life Sciences) at Indira Gandhi National Open
University (hereinafter referred to as ‘IGNOU’ for the sake of brevity).
4. Much has been argued by the learned counsel for appellant No.1 that
she is a brilliant student. In support of the submission learned Counsel has
taken this court to various anne xures and the previous marks obtained by
appellant No.1 in the earlier practical examinations, wherein she has scored
over 85 marks out of 100. It is further submitted by counsel for appellant
No.1 that she has also appeared in the LL.B. Entrance Examination and ha s
secured a high rank and thus the appellant deserves to be given 16 grace
marks in the Biology Practic al Examination to enable her to clear the
examination. It is submitted that in the Biology practical examination
appellant has secured 20 marks, whereas passing marks are 36 and therefore
a direction should have been given by the learned Single Judge to the
University, to award grace marks by 16 , while exercising powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2021:DHC:94-DB
LPA 14/2021 Page 3 of 4

5. Having heard counsel for app ellant No.1 and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case , we see no reason to entertain this appeal, mainly
for the following facts and reasons: –
(i) Appellant No.1 had appear ed in the B.Sc Final Examination,
held by IGNOU, and secured only 20 ma rks in Biology Practical
Examination, whereas t he passing marks / qualifying marks are 36.
(ii) Counsel for the appellant prays for a direction to the University
to grant 16 grace marks, which direction is impermissible in the eyes
of law.
(iii) There are no rules, regulations or bye -laws of the University
which permit the grant of 16 grace marks and hence in our view no
error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding
the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein being W.P.(C)
9420 /2020 , which was decided vide order dated 25.11.2020.
(iv) Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that appellant is
a brilliant student and has also cleared Entrance Examination for the
Law Degree. While the Court does not have any doubt on the brilliance or calibre of the appellant No.1, however, the fact remains
that the appellant has not cleared the practical examination held for the third year in the BSc Degree course and therefore clearing the
LL.B. Entrance Examination cannot enure to the advantage of the
appellant.
(v) We see no reason to direct the University to grant the grace
marks or interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge as we
find no infirmity in the said order , passed in exercis e of jurisdiction
2021:DHC:94-DB
LPA 14/2021 Page 4 of 4

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . We cannot be more
charitable than law. The highest charitable person is the law. Charity
beyond law is a cruelty to others . There is no law or rules or
regulations which permit us to pass any such direction.
6. In view of the aforesa id facts and reasons, we see no reason to
entertain the present appeal as no error has been committed by the learned
Single Judge while deciding W.P.(C) 9420/2020 vide order dated
25.11.2020. Hence , this appeal along with the applications is hereby
dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JYOTI SINGH, J
JANUARY 11, 2021
kks

2021:DHC:94-DB