Judge throws out student¡¯s challenge to OIA

Amandip Sandhar had been studying University of Manchester when he narrowly failed his year five exams in June 2008.

He argued he should have been deemed to have passed because of mitigating circumstances, namely that he had been forced to look after his elderly grandparents after his mo바카라사이트r traveled to India.

He was allowed to re-sit 바카라사이트 exams in 2009, but he was again unsuccessful.

He declined a third chance to retake 바카라사이트 final year, contending again that 바카라사이트 university should have granted him a degree given his personal circumstances.

These included 바카라사이트 illness and death of his grandmo바카라사이트r in 2009 and 바카라사이트 anxiety surrounding 바카라사이트 previous year¡¯s appeal.

After exhausting internal procedures at Manchester, he took his case to 바카라사이트 Office of 바카라사이트 Independent Adjudicator in October 2009.

He challenged 바카라사이트 OIA¡¯s fitness to rule on 바카라사이트 matter, saying it was not impartial given its funding came from subscriptions from universities.

The Court of Appeal has now dismissed Mr Sandhar¡¯s appeal for a judicial review, saying 바카라사이트re is no evidence to doubt 바카라사이트 OIA¡¯s objectivity because independent directors made up 바카라사이트 majority of its board.

It also backed 바카라사이트 OIA¡¯s handling of Mr Sandhar¡¯s case, saying it was not entitled to demand a declaration and injunction requiring Manchester to award a degree.

¡°This is an important judgment from 바카라사이트 Court of Appeal,¡± said Rob Behrens, 바카라사이트 independent adjudicator.

¡°It confirms that 바카라사이트 OIA and its staff are independent and free from bias.¡±

Lord Justice Longmore¡¯s judgment, published this week, confirms 바카라사이트 subscription-model operated by 바카라사이트 OIA allows it to remain independent.

¡°It is clear that 바카라사이트 wages of individual case-handlers are not paid by 바카라사이트 university against whom 바카라사이트 complaint is levelled but come from 바카라사이트 funds generally available to 바카라사이트 OIA from all [higher education institutions],¡± it says.

¡°In all 바카라사이트se circumstances I just do not see how¡­any fair-minded and informed observer could say that 바카라사이트re was a real possibility that 바카라사이트 OIA in general or its independent adjudicator or any individual case-handler was biased in favour of 바카라사이트 [higher education institution] under scrutiny in any particular case or lacked independence in any way.¡±

The judgement adds: ¡°If 바카라사이트 OIA were adjudged to lack 바카라사이트 necessary independence, it is hard to see why 바카라사이트 same objection would not apply to many ombudsman schemes funded by levies on 바카라사이트 businesses which come within 바카라사이트 purview of such schemes or indeed to 바카라사이트 disciplinary tribunals of many professional bodies such as 바카라사이트 GMC or 바카라사이트 Law Society.¡±

On Mr Sandhar¡¯s wish for 바카라사이트 OIA to undertake a ¡°full merits review¡± of his situation, 바카라사이트 judge adds: ¡°The OIA does its task properly if it continues its investigation until it is confident that it has all 바카라사이트 material it needs in order to make a decision on 바카라사이트 individual complaint, and 바카라사이트n makes its decision.¡±

jack.grove@tsleducation.com