The Bombay High Court on Monday pulled up Mumbai University (MU) and ‘by all appearances’ saw that the college’s choice to pull out prior consequences of law courses dependent on ‘normal scores of past semesters’ and supplanting something very similar with ‘task based assessment’ due pandemic was ‘ridiculous.’
A division seat of Justice R D Dhanuka and Justice R I Chagla was hearing a request by a last year understudy of Government Law College (GLC), Mumbai, who has a learning handicap Attention Deficit Disorder, an actual inability in the left eye and furthermore is a patient under treatment for intense pressure.
The solicitor has tested Mumbai University’s request for recently, dated July 5, proclaiming prior outcomes tests which were planned for the main portion of 2020, which couldn’t be directed because of ‘extraordinary pandemic and cross country lockdown’ through ‘task based assessment’
The said tests incorporate semesters 2 and 4 of the three-year LLB Course, alongside semesters 2, 4, 6, and 8 of the five-year BLS-LLB course and semesters 2,4,6, and 8 of the five-year BBA – LLB course.
Through its July 5 choice, MU had removed prior outcomes dependent on the ‘normal scores of the past semester and inward scores/assessment’ and proposed to supplant them with scores acquired through ‘task based assessment.’
The MU coordinated that in each subject, two tasks will be presented by an understudy for 50 imprints and the score acquired will be extrapolated to the size of 60 or 100, whichever is material.
The candidate understudy through advocates Shashank Sudir, Srishty Jaura, Rahul Jain and Khushboo Rupani raised a complaint that neither the Bar Council of India (BCI) nor the MU are enabled to issue such headings. The legal advisors encouraged that outcomes which are now pronounced as far back as on May 22, 2020, can’t be reported as dropped and can’t be subbed by the technique endorsed in the July 5 round gave by MU depending on orders of BCI.
The round is ‘discretionary and outlandish,’ since understudies are coordinated to submit ten tasks inside a limited capacity to focus 21 days, the applicant submitted and looked to save the choice.
“We are of the by all appearances see that the outcomes which are as of now announced on May 22, 2020, in regard of different semesters alluded in the round dated July 5, 2021, couldn’t have been removed and the understudies couldn’t have been coordinated to submit tasks with the end goal of additional assessment,” the seat noted.
Promoter Ashutosh M Kulkarni for MU presented that the wellspring of the round was BCI orders of June 10. The BCI had passed a goal that Universities will direct tests for transitional and last year law understudies upon the accessibility of assets and effect of the Covid-19 pandemic around there. The BCI had added that the Universities were allowed to decide the method of assessment/assessment.
The Court ‘at first sight’ saw that guidance for BCI and MU couldn’t call attention to any arrangement allowing them to drop or pull out the outcomes singularly with review impact, which are now proclaimed and guiding the understudies to submit tasks and that additionally inside a limited capacity to focus time.”
Supporter Amit Sale for BCI looked for time to accept guidelines regarding whether orders gave to MU can be removed or changed “taking into account the way that the consequences of an enormous number of the understudies in different semesters which is a topic of the reproved roundabout were at that point announced prior to May 22, 2020′ and if the outcomes previously proclaimed can be reestablished.