Gold Medal Claim Fails After Nine-Year Delay and Three Conflicting Accounts, J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal

The Division Bench found that an MD graduate's shifting narratives about a University of Kashmir Gold Medal, combined with a nine-year delay in filing, fatally undermined his writ petition.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar, on 3 June 2026 dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Ibrar Bashir Shirazi against the University of Kashmir. The appellant had sought a Gold Medal he claimed was awarded to him for securing first position in the MD course, only to be retrieved by University officials. The Single Judge had dismissed the underlying writ petition on grounds of delay and laches. The Division Bench agreed, finding that the appellant had presented three materially inconsistent versions of events across the writ petition, his rejoinder affidavit, and the memo of appeal — a pattern that, combined with a nine-year gap before approaching the court, left his claim without the merit required for discretionary relief under Article 226.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Shirazi filed WP (C) No. 3383/2023 seeking a direction to the University of Kashmir to return a Gold Medal he said had been conferred on him at a Convocation. Chapter XI of the Kashmir University Statutes, he contended, provides that Gold Medals shall be conferred annually at Convocation upon candidates securing first position in order of merit.

His initial case was that he attended a Convocation in 2014, presided over by the then Governor of the erstwhile State of J&K in his capacity as Chancellor. He received both a Gold Medal and a certificate of merit at that ceremony. University officials then asked him to return the medal, citing a shortage of medals for meritorious students, and assured him it would be restored once fresh medals were procured. Repeated representations over the following years produced nothing, prompting the 2023 writ petition.

The University opposed the claim on two fronts. On the merits, it contended that under the relevant Statutes — specifically Statute X — first-position holders in the MD course are not entitled to a Gold Medal, and that Convocations serve exclusively for conferment of degree certificates upon Ph.D., M.Phil., and MD/MS students. On procedure, it raised delay and laches, pointing out that the cause of action allegedly arose in 2014 and the petition was filed only in 2023. The University also categorically denied that any Gold Medal was ever handed over to the appellant.

The Single Judge's Order and the Intra-Court Appeal

By an order dated 18 September 2025, the learned Writ Court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches. The Single Judge noted that the appellant had been invited to receive a certificate of merit, which had already been duly awarded, and declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction given the nine-year gap.

Shirazi challenged that order through LPA No. 301/2025. His principal ground was that the delay should not be attributed to him at all: the University had not held a Convocation from 2014 until 2023, and that administrative inertia was the true cause of the gap. He also relied on a notification dated 23 October 2023, which he said explicitly mandates the presentation of Gold Medals to all qualifying MD/MS candidates, arguing that the University's reliance on superseded Statutes to defeat his claim was unsustainable — a consideration the Single Judge had allegedly overlooked.

Three Inconsistent Narratives Across Three Stages

The Division Bench's reasoning turned almost entirely on the appellant's shifting factual case. The Bench identified three distinct versions presented at three separate stages of the litigation.

In the writ petition itself, the appellant said a Convocation was held in 2014 at which he received both a Gold Medal and a certificate of merit. University officials then retrieved the medal on account of a shortage, promising to restore it.

In paragraph 8 of the memo of appeal, an entirely new case appeared. The appellant now asserted that the first Convocation after completion of his course was held in 2013, not 2014. He claimed he received a certificate of merit dated 13 November 2013 along with a Gold Medal. University officials then approached him and directed the return of both documents, citing ambiguity about whether the award was for “overall merit in the MD” or was specific to his specialty. He returned the documents in good faith.

In his rejoinder affidavit before the Single Judge, a third version emerged. There, the appellant stated that during the first Convocation he received the certificate of merit dated 13 November 2013 along with the Gold Medal, but that post-Convocation he approached the respondents to claim his Gold Medal and was asked to return the certificate — not the medal — on the ground that such awards are based on overall merit in the MD course and not for individual specialties under the MD umbrella.

The Bench observed that these three accounts were irreconcilable. Whether the medal was physically handed over and then retrieved, whether it was the certificate or the medal that was returned, and whether the relevant Convocation was in 2013 or 2014 were all contested by the appellant's own pleadings. The Bench concluded that the appellant was “unsure of his own case, having lost sight of the true facts owing to the passage of time.”

Why the Delay Could Not Be Excused

The cause of action, on any version of the appellant's case, arose no later than 2014. The writ petition was filed in 2023 — a gap of nine years. The appellant's argument that the University's failure to hold a Convocation between 2014 and 2023 explained the delay did not persuade the Bench.

The Bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in HMT Ltd. v. Smt. Rukmini and others, 2024 INSC 728, where relief was denied to litigants who had varied their stand repeatedly. The Supreme Court had observed in that case that litigants who “slept over the matter for decades together” should be prevented from raising issues that were stale and forgotten, and that changing positions to suit one's advantage is itself indicative of a lack of merit.

The Division Bench also drew on the Supreme Court's observations in Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, quoted within the HMT Ltd. judgment, to the effect that an aggrieved person must approach the High Court diligently, that delay can cause prejudice as parties' positions change, and that a Constitutional Court must be convinced the case warrants exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. The principle from State of Maharashtra v. Digambar was also cited: discretionary relief under Article 226 cannot be granted without considering blameworthy conduct such as delay and laches, even where an alleged deprivation of a legal right is asserted.

Applying these principles, the Bench held that the appellant could not cite administrative inertia to excuse an inordinate nine-year delay, particularly when his own vacillating stance revealed uncertainty about the basic facts and the University had fundamentally disputed his entitlement to the relief.

Outcome

The Division Bench held that the learned Writ Court had correctly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of gross delay and laches. The appellant's shifting narratives at three separate stages of litigation left his plea without the merit required for judicial intervention. LPA No. 301/2025 was found to be misconceived and was dismissed on 3 June 2026. The judgment was marked as both speaking and reportable.