Indu Kumari vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Ministry Of Human Resource Development

Facts

The petitioner, Indu Kumari, enrolled in the Diploma in Primary Education (DPE) programme with Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in June 2005. She completed all subjects except ES-221 and ES-222. After readmission in November 2017, she passed ES-221 but failed ES-222 in the December 2018 examination, receiving a grade 'E'. Upon obtaining her answer script via RTI, she alleged gross error in evaluation. She reappeared for ES-222 on June 29, 2019, and obtained a grade 'C', indicating a pass, but her result was not declared. Later, on November 13, 2019, her result was shown as not published due to 'Readmission Not Done'. She represented to IGNOU authorities on November 18, 2019, but received no decision, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's grievance regarding the evaluation of her answer script or the non-publication of her result. Instead, it focused on the procedural aspect of grievance redressal. The Court acknowledged that Statute 7(2)(l) of the IGNOU Statutes, framed under Section 24 of the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, empowers the Board of Management to entertain and adjudicate upon the grievances of students. Therefore, without deciding the substantive issues, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Registrar-cum-Secretary, Board of Management, IGNOU. The Registrar was directed to place the grievance before the Board of Management within two weeks of receipt, and the Board was to decide the matter within eight weeks thereafter. The decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within one week of being taken. The ratio decidendi is that statutory provisions for grievance redressal must be followed, and the designated authority should be approached first.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Board of Management of IGNOU has the power to entertain and adjudicate upon the grievances of students regarding the evaluation of answer scripts and publication of results, as per Statute 7(2)(l) of the Statutes of the University prepared in terms of Section 24 of the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Statute 7(2)(l) empowers the Board of Management to address student grievances, implying they should decide on her case concerning the alleged erroneous evaluation and non-publication of her result. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the issues raised by the petitioner. However, the court's direction implies the Board of Management's jurisdiction was implicitly acknowledged or not contested.