The Chhattisgarh High Court recently rejected a petition filed by Satyendra Prakash Suryawanshi, a student simultaneously pursuing two academic degrees, who sought changes to his examination timetable to avoid overlapping exam dates. The Court observed that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain such requests under writ jurisdiction and affirmed that the petitioner had no legal standing to demand modifications in examination schedules.
Background of the Case
Satyendra Prakash Suryawanshi, the petitioner, was enrolled in an MSW program from Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University and an LLB (Part-III, 2nd Semester) course from Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya. He approached the High Court requesting that the final examination timetables of both universities be altered so that his exam dates did not clash. He cited that exams for four of his subjects were scheduled on the same date and at the same time.
Read Also:- CRPF Constable’s Appeal Dismissed: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Murder of Colleagues
He further argued that he had taken re-admission based on certain notifications issued by both universities, which he considered arbitrary. Referring to a revised order by the University Grants Commission (UGC), which permits the simultaneous pursuit of two degrees, the petitioner claimed that the universities were not aligning their systems with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. He contended that this misalignment violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The petitioner, appearing in person, emphasized that the government had constituted a Task Force for implementing NEP 2020 and had directed all universities in the state to ensure curriculum inclusivity. He claimed that the failure to adjust the exam schedule was indicative of poor implementation of the policy and institutional negligence. He sought a stay on the examination schedules until the petition was resolved.
Read Also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹411 Crore Medical Procurement Scam
Court’s Observations
The counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the petitioner’s request. After hearing both sides, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma observed:
“Taking into consideration the fact that the relief which has been sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the petitioner has no locus to direct the respondent authorities to make modifications in the final examination timetable... in view of the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for any interference.”
Read Also:- No Leniency for POCSO Offenders: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds 20-Year Sentence in Gang-Rape of Minor
The Court concluded that it could not intervene in matters concerning examination schedules through a writ petition and dismissed the plea, stating that the petitioner’s claims lacked merit.
Case Title:
“Satyendra Prakash Suryawanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others”
[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3068 of 2025