Kaustubh Anil Shakkarwar v. Jindal Global Law School, O.P Jindal Global University And ANR

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.267 CWP-29690-2024(O&M) Date of Decision: 18.11.2024 Kaustubh Anil Shakkarwar

...Petitioner

Versus

Jindal Global Law School and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:

Mr. Romy Chacko, Senior Advocate (Through Video Conferencing) with Ms. Prabhneer Swani, Advocate and Mr. Ashwini Romy, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Bhargav, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate for the respondent(s)-University.

- JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.(ORAL) 1.

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned decision of the "Unfair Means Committee", impugned decision of the Controller of Examinations dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P-16), with a further prayer to direct the respondent-University to refund the re-sit/re-examination fees.

2.

Both the learned Senior Counsels for the parties are ad idem and have stated that so far as the main prayer of the petitioner with regard to the failing of the petitioner on ground of alleged use of Artificial Intelligence in the examination is concerned, the same has been resolved in view of the statement made by Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University assisted by Mr. Ajay Bhargawa, Advocate that the petitioner has already been intimated that a revised DMC (Detailed Mark DINESH KUMAR 2024.11.29 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at the bottom of left side

-2Card) / transcript has been issued to the petitioner and he has been declared to have passed the aforesaid exam and the earlier objection with regard to use of AI in the present case no longer subsists. 3.

In this way, the main grievance of the petitioner has been redressed as per the learned counsel for the respondents and, therefore, the basic prayer does not survive and the subject matter has become infructuous in the present case.

4.

So far as the remaining prayer of the petitioner as to whether the University could have failed the petitioner because of use of AI in submitting the aforesaid examination is concerned, the same is now academic in nature.

5.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. ( JASGURPREET SINGH PURI ) JUDGE 18.11.2024 dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2024.11.29 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document at the bottom of left side