Judges find lack of due diligence; dismiss plea despite claims of lack of notification by college
PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has dismissed a plea filed by two students seeking relief after missing the deadline to submit examination forms, while holding that “the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep.”
The Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish Chavan observed that the petitioner students failed to exercise due diligence and were solely responsible for their predicament.
The students enrolled in the B.Sc. (Chemistry) course at PES’s Ravi S Naik College of Arts and Science, Ponda, had failed their Analytical Chemistry paper in April 2025 and were required to reappear for the repeat examination scheduled for October. However, they claimed they were unable to submit their forms as the college had not effectively circulated Goa University’s notification dated September 3, 2025.
Their counsel, during the hearing of the petitioners’ writ petition, argued that the University’s directive clearly required affiliated colleges to notify staff and students, but the college neither posted it on its website nor circulated it via WhatsApp. This, the petitioners stated, amounted to negligence that was depriving them of the chance to appear for the exam.
“...The Petitioners, having unjustly suffered owing to the lack of circulation of the said notification, deserved an extension to submit their application forms to answer the repeat exam as scheduled in October 2025, the failure of which will cause grave injustice to the Petitioners,” the counsel submitted, seeking Court intervention for relief.
The University counsel opposed any relaxation, stating that deadlines were extended from time to time, the last up to September 19, 2025. Accepting late forms from a few would open the floodgates for others, she submitted.
Supporting the University’s stand, the college produced a copy of its September 3 notice displayed on the campus notice board, along with proof that 92 other students, including 30 from the B.Sc. stream, had filed their repeat exam forms. This notice, it stated, also mentioned the deadline and the late fee, with instructions that no further extension would be allowed in any circumstance. The college maintained that it did not operate any official WhatsApp group and that the notice board was a sufficient mode of communication.
The Bench observed that students were expected to remain vigilant, particularly when aware that repeat examinations were scheduled in October–November.
“We find a student who did not bother to even keep a watch on the possible dates and, in fact, even when he was conscious that the examination is to be held in October/November, and we expect he ought to have been vigilant in visiting the College or making enquiries with the College as to when the examination is scheduled and what will be the last date of filling of the examination form,” it said, adding, “We could have come to the assistance of a student who is diligent, but due to some unforeseen circumstances has lost the opportunity, but not for a student who remained casual.”
Finding no merit and substance in the petition, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
