A student who failed his first-year examination and then stopped studying cannot ask a university for sweeping reliefs on curriculum and infrastructure, the Allahabad High Court has said, warning him against filing frivolous petitions.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the intra-court special appeal of a BA student who wanted a first-year examination quashed, the curriculum revised and Rs 5 lakh in compensation from the University of Allahabad, and has cautioned him against frivolous petitions. The appeal challenged a Single Judge’s refusal of those sweeping reliefs [XYZ v. University of Allahabad through its Registrar and 4 Others].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra decided Special Appeal Defective No. 353 of 2026. The appellant argued in person, while Diptiman Singh, learned counsel, appeared for the University. The order refers to the student only as XYZ.
The writ petition and the Single Judge’s order
Admitted in the 2022-23 session to a three-year BA course at a college affiliated to the University of Allahabad, the appellant was declared fail in the BA Part-I examinations held in 2024 and did not carry on with his studies. He then filed Writ-C No. 4966 of 2025, asking among other things for the first-year examination of session 2023-24 to be quashed and failed students promoted to the second year, for a revision of the curriculum, for renovation and allotment of the boys’ hostel, for a committee of retired judges to inquire into alleged systemic failure of classes, and for compensation of Rs 5,00,000.
The Single Judge disposed of the petition on 15 October 2025 without granting those reliefs, but observed that if his marksheet had been withheld without sufficient reason it should be provided to him, and that he could be allowed to take a supplementary or fresh examination in 2026 under the University’s regulations, if there was no legal impediment. His special appeal came 164 days late; the Division Bench condoned the delay since the respondents did not oppose the application.
Reliefs that were not his to claim
Of the six reliefs sought, the Bench found, only part of the first prayer, for promotion to the second year, touched a grievance of the appellant himself. It held:
The other reliefs claimed are quite general and vague in nature and, in the opinion of the Court, the same could not at all be claimed by the appellant, who had failed in B.A. Part-I and never studied further.
No relief about the marksheet had been claimed in the writ petition, the Bench noted, and the marksheet had in any case already been issued and was filed with the appeal; the Single Judge, it added, had been considerate in letting him appear in the 2026 examination. Remarking that the appellant did not seem to be going ahead with his studies, the Bench pointed to his pleadings, which list suggestions on water, light, toilets, new career-oriented courses, library books, roads, digital boards and classroom infrastructure, and said he appeared more taken up with activities other than academics.
The arguments
The appellant argued that the Single Judge was not justified in refusing the reliefs when the University had filed no counter affidavit, that the relief actually granted was illusory and had not been prayed for, and that the University had not followed the University Grants Commission guidelines on curriculum, examinations and marks.
The University called him a habitual litigant. It said an earlier writ petition of his on non-issuance of a marksheet was disposed of with a direction to hand it over, and a contempt application was closed once issuance was brought to the Court’s notice. It added that he had filed a petition claiming Rs 10 lakh as compensation, and that in every matter the Court had asked him to avoid frivolous litigation and concentrate on academics.
Dismissal, with a warning
The memo of appeal, the Bench recorded, carried allegations against University officials and objectionable language about the Single Judge, which it chose not to set out, saying it was pardoning him at this stage. It declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal:
The appeal has no substance; the same is, therefore, dismissed with a warning to the appellant not to indulge in filing of frivolous petitions before this Court, else the Court would be compelled to pass orders which may be adverse to the appellant in multiple ways.
What the order shows
The order shows how a High Court deals with broad, public-interest style reliefs raised by a litigant with no live grievance of his own. The one relief personal to the appellant, the chance to sit the 2026 examination, was left open, while he was told that pleas on infrastructure and curriculum are not his to press once he has stopped studying.
Case Title: XYZ v. University of Allahabad through its Registrar and 4 Others [Special Appeal Defective No. 353 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: not stated in the copy of the order
Appearances: The appellant in person; Diptiman Singh, learned counsel, for the University of Allahabad