C. JAYANNA v. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES — 1969 DIGILAW 112 (KAR)

CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was an applicant for admission to the course leading to the Bachelor Degree in Agricultural Science (hereinafter referred to as the B. Sc. (Ag.) Course) in the University of Agricultural Sciences at bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the University), for the academic year 1969-70. He was not selected for admission to that course. In this petition he has impugned his non-selection. ( 2 ) THE minimum educational qualification prescribed for admission to the B. Sc. (Ag) course, is a pass in the Pre-University examination or the higher Secondary School Certificate examination or an equivalent examination (all of which will hereinafter be referred to as the qualifying examinations') with not fewer than two of the subjects, Physics, Chemistry, botany, Zoology and Biology. ( 3 ) IN the propectus for the year 1969-70 issued by the University, it was stated that admission for seats, both general and reserved, would be made strictly according to the aggregate percentage of marks obtained by candidates in the respective category (general and reserved) in the qualifying examination. This was in accordance with Regulation 10 as it stood then, of the Regulations for Admission and Registration of Students to the degree Courses of the University. ( 4 ) THE last date for receipt of applications for admission to the B. Sc. (Ag.) course was 19-7-1969. By the Notification dated 10-7-1969 which was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 17-7-1969, Regulation 10 was amended by substituting a new mode of selection of candidates for admission to the Bachelor Degree courses of the University. Amended Regulation 10 provides for holding a written test and a viva voce for selection of candidates for the said courses. The marks secured by candidates in the qualifying examination, is given a weightage of 60 per cent; marks secured by candidates in the said written test and in the said viva, voce are given weightage of 30 per cent and 10 per cent respectively. The aggregate of all these marks (in accordance with the aforesaid weiggtages) shall form the basis for determining the relative merit of candidates for the purpose of selection for admission to the respective courses. The aggregate of all these marks (in accordance with the aforesaid weiggtages) shall form the basis for determining the relative merit of candidates for the purpose of selection for admission to the respective courses. it is undisputed that the petitioner had passed the Pre-University examination with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as Optional subjects and had secured 211 out ol 300 marks in those subjects, 43 out of 100 marks in English and 36 out of 100 in the Second Language (Kannada ). On or about 24-7-1969 he was intimated that the written test would be held on 30-7-1969. He took the written test and the viva voce. ( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit tiled on behalf of the University, it has been stated that the aggregate marks (marks secured in the Pre-University examination, the written test and the viva voce) obtained by the petitioner were 46. 30 as against 54. 24 marks obtained by the last candidate who was selected in the category of candidates to which the petitioner belonged. Mr. Shivananjundappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged the following contentions:" (i) Amended Regulation 10 which prescribes the written test and the viva voce, is ultra vires; (ii) The written test and the viva voce cannot be adopted as parts of method of selection; (iii) Regulation 10 could not be amended so as to provide for a new method of selection, after the prospectus had been issued and applications for admission had been called for the academic year 1969-70; (iv) Sufficient time was not given to prepare for the written tost and the viva voce. (v) Criteria for conducting the written test and the viva voce, have not been laid down by the Regulations; (vi) The written test and the viva voce conducted by the Selection committee were arbitrary and unreasonable; (vii) The marks secured by candidates in languages should not be taken into account and only the marks secured in the optional subjects should be taken into account in determining the relative merit; and (viii) Candidates not belonging to families of agriculturists should not have been admitted. " ( 6 ) WE shall now deal with these contentions seriatim. Elucidating the first contention, Mr. " ( 6 ) WE shall now deal with these contentions seriatim. Elucidating the first contention, Mr. Shivananjundappa argued that the method selection for admission to courses of study, can be prescribed only by Statutes and not by Regulations of the University and that regulation 10, In so far as it prescribes such method, is ultra-vires and of no legal effect. ( 7 ) IN order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to set out certain provisions of the University of Agricultural Science Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under which the University has been constituted. 'statutes' and 'regulations' have been defined in Sec. 2 (7) as Statutes and Regulations of the University made under the Act. The relevant parts of Sec. 28 which sets out the powers of the Academic council, read:"28 (1) Powers of the Academic Council- the Academic Council shall, subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes have the power, by Regulations, of prescribing all courses of study and of determining curricula and have general control on teaching, research, and extension education within the University and be responsible for the maintenance of standards thereof. It shall have power to make regulations consistent with the Act and the Statutes relating to all matters subject to its control and to amend or repeal such Regulations. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Academic Council shall have power- (a) * (d) to make regulations regarding the admission of students to the university; (e) to make regulations regarding examinations conducted by the university and the conditions on which students shall be admitted to such examination. " ( 8 ) THE relevant parts of Sec. 39 of the Act read-"39. Statutes.-Subject to the provisions of this Act, the statutes may provide for any matter and shall, in particular, provide for the following:- (a) * * * (n) the admission of students to the University and their enrolment and continuance as such; (p) the conditions under which students shall be admitted to the degree, diploma or other courses and to the examinations of the University, and the eligibility for the conferment of degrees and award of diplomas; (w) the conduct of examinations. "on a reading of Ss. "on a reading of Ss. 28 and 39 of the Act, it is evident that the matters which have to be provided for by Statutes and matters which may be provided for by Regulations, are not mutually exclusive, but are overlapping to a considerable extent. Any possible conflict between Statutes and Regulations, is resolved by S. 28 which provides that the Regulations shall be subject to the Statutes and that the Regulations should be consistent with the Statutes. Thus, it is seen that where the Act provides for Statutes and regulations being made in respect of the same matter, the Regulations can only supplement the Statutes and should not be inconsistent with the statutes. Subject to this, both Statutes and Regulations can co-exist in respect of such matter. ( 9 ) MR. SHIVANANJUNDAPPA is right in his submission that clauses (n) and (p) of S. 39 of the Act require Statutes shall be made in respect of admission of students to the University and conditions under which students shall be admitted to any course of study in the University. But that does not mean that Regulations cannot be made under clause (d) of Sec. 28 (2) regarding admission of students to the University. So long as such Regulations do not conflict with Statutes in regard to admission of students, such Regulations are valid and operate along with Statutes. But, Mr. Shivananjundappa submitted that while S. 39 (p) requires statutes being made providing for the conditions under which students shall be admitted to the Unviersity, clause (d) of S. 28 (2) which empowers regulations being made regarding admission of students, does not specifically mention of conditions under which students shall be admitted to the University. Mr. Shivananjundappa argued that the method of selection, being a condition under which a student is admitted to a course of study in the University, can only be provided for by Statutes and not by regulations. ( 10 ) WE think the words, 'regarding admission of students to the University', occurring in clause (d) of S. 28 (1), are wide enough to include the method of selection for admission of students to a course of study in the university. However, Mr. ( 10 ) WE think the words, 'regarding admission of students to the University', occurring in clause (d) of S. 28 (1), are wide enough to include the method of selection for admission of students to a course of study in the university. However, Mr. Shivananjundappa argued that while enrolment of students has been specifically provided for in clause (n) of S. 39, clause (d) of S. 28 (2) does not mention of such enrolment, and hence the method of selection of students which is a preliminary step for such enrolment, can also be done only by Statutes and not by Regulations. Support for this contention was sought to be derived from the definition hi S. 2 (8) of the term 'student of the University', as a person who is enrolled in the University for undergoing a course of study, a degree, a diploma or other academic distinction duly instituted. ( 11 ) THE word, 'enrolment', has not been defined in the Act. In our opinion, it merely means entering the name of a student in the rolls of the University. That the word, 'enrolment', has not been specifically mentioned in clause (d) of S. 28 (2), does not mean that the method of admission to a course of study, is not within the scope of Regulations made regarding admission of students to the University. It was argued by Mr. Shivananjundappa that S. 39 is mandatory, that the Statutes should be hi regard to several matters set out in clauses (a) to (z) of that section and hence, appropriate statute or Statutes should have been made under clause (p) of S. 39 providing for conditions under which students should be admitted to courses of study. Under sub-sec. (1) of S. 40 of the Act, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has made the first Statutes of the University. Statute 44 deals with qualifications for admission of students. Clause (1) of Statute 44 provides that the minimum academic attainment for admission to a faculty of the university, shall be recommended by the Council and shall not be below a pass in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination. Statute 44 deals with qualifications for admission of students. Clause (1) of Statute 44 provides that the minimum academic attainment for admission to a faculty of the university, shall be recommended by the Council and shall not be below a pass in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination. Clause (2) of Statute 44 provides that in addition to the prescribed academic attainment, a candidate for admission to the University shall possess good moral habits and such other personal and physical pre-requisites as may be determined by the Director of Students Welfare (with the aid of the Committee to be initiated by the Vice-Chancellor ). ( 12 ) THUS, it is seen that Statutes have been made providing for conditions under which students shall be admitted to faculties of the University. But S. 39 of the Act does not state that all conditions relating to admission of students to the University should be made by Statutes only. So long as the main conditions for admission of students to courses of study in the University, have been made by a Statute, the requirement of S. 39 has been complied with. What amended Regulation 10 has done is to prescribe certain other conditions which are supplementary to the conditions prescribed by Statute 44. Thus, we are unable to accede to the contention of Mr. Shivananjundappa that the method of selection to courses of study, can be provided for only by Statutes and not by Regulations. ( 13 ) IT was next contended by Mr. Shivananjundappa that the method of selection for admission to courses of study, should be only on the basis of marks obtained bv a candidate in the qualifying examination and that the University authorities could not prescribe the written test and the viva voce as parts of such method of selection. Mr. Shivananjundappa submitted that for admission to most of technical and professional courses, the selection is on the basis of marks secured by candidates in the qualifying examination and that no separate written test and viva voce are held for selection to such courses. ( 14 ) THAT a separate written test and a viva voce are not employed as parts of the method of selection for certain other courses of study or in certain other Universities, is no ground for holding that such written test and viva voce should not be adopted for selection for the B. Sc. ( 14 ) THAT a separate written test and a viva voce are not employed as parts of the method of selection for certain other courses of study or in certain other Universities, is no ground for holding that such written test and viva voce should not be adopted for selection for the B. Sc. (Ag.) course. Mr. N. Venkatachala, learned Counsel for the University, submitted that the reason for prescribing the written test, is that the Preuniversity examinations held by the three Universities in the State of Mysore, namely, the Bangalore University, the Mysore University and the Karnatak university, may not be of a uniform standard, and that in order to have, as far as possible a uniform yard-stick as a supplemental measure for assessing the relative merit of candidates, the authorities decided to hold a separate written test instead of depending exclusively upon the marks secured by candidates in the qualifying examinations which had been held by different Universities. In view of this explanation, the prescription of a written test as a part of the method of selection, cannot be said to be unreasonable. ( 15 ) A viva voce as a supplement to a written examination or a written test, has been a well-accepted method of selection of candidates for different courses of studv. In Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823 , the Supreme court upheld the validity of the viva voce as a part of the method of selection of students for Medical Colleges. We are unable to accent the contention of Mr. Shivananiundappa that the written test and the viva voce could not be adopted bv the University authorities as parts of the method of selection of candidates for the B. Sc. (Ag) Course. ( 16 ) IT was then contended by Mr. Shivananjundappa that having issued, for the academic year 1969-70, the prospectus in which the criterion for selection was stated to be the marks secured by candidates in the qualifying examination, it was not open to the University authorities to amend regulation 10 so as to prescribe a naw method of selection for the academic year 1969-70. Shivananjundappa that having issued, for the academic year 1969-70, the prospectus in which the criterion for selection was stated to be the marks secured by candidates in the qualifying examination, it was not open to the University authorities to amend regulation 10 so as to prescribe a naw method of selection for the academic year 1969-70. ( 17 ) IN the absence of any limitation in the Act as to the time when the academic Council can make or amend Regulations, there was no legal impediment for the Academic Council amending Regulations after the prospectus for 1969-70 had been issued. By merely sending his application for admission, no student had acquired any vested right that his selection should be on the basis of the method prescribed by Statutes or Regulations as in force at the time of sending his application. Every applicant must be imputed with the knowledge of the legal position that the University authorities are competent, to amend the Statutes and the Regulations governing the method of selection, at any time before the selection is actually made. ( 18 ) AS the University has legal competence to amend the Regulations governing the method of selection, even after the issue of prospectus for an academic year and before mailing the selection, amended Regulation 10 must be held to bo valid. However, we think it is desirable that the method of selection to a course of study should be dpcided by the authorities before issuing the prospectus for a particular academic year so that the applicants may know, while applying by what, method the selection will be made. ( 19 ) THE grievance of the petitioner that he did not have sufficient time to prepare for the written test, has no force. We have perused the question paper set for the written test held in July 1963. Most of the questions were in the science subiects which the applicants for the B. Sc. (Ag.) Course had studied for the qualifying examinations. Therr were a few questions intended to test the general knowledge of the. applicants. A student who had passed the qualifying examinations, did not require any further time to prepare for the written test. Most of the questions were in the science subiects which the applicants for the B. Sc. (Ag.) Course had studied for the qualifying examinations. Therr were a few questions intended to test the general knowledge of the. applicants. A student who had passed the qualifying examinations, did not require any further time to prepare for the written test. The interval of about a week between the date on which the petitioner received the intimation of the written test and the date on which such test was held, cannot, in the circumstances, be said to be unreasonably short. ( 20 ) MR. Shivananjundappa contended that in the absence of criteria laid down bv Statutes or Regulations, as to how the written test and the viva voce should be conducted, such written test and viva voce should be held to be invalid on account of the possibility of their being held arbitrarily. It is true that amended Regulation 10 has not provided in what subjects questions should be put in the written test and the viva voce. But the mere absence of prescription of such subjects, will not render that Regulation invalid. The course for which the selection is to be made will itself afford guidance as to the subiects in which the written test and the viva voce should be held. Moreover the conduct of the written test and the viva voce were entrusted to a hieh academic body consisting of the dean and the Principals of Colleges. ( 21 ) AS stated earlier, most of the questions in the written test were in the science subjects which the candidates had studied for the qualifying examinations. Other questions were intended to test the general knowledge of candidates. Hence, the written test cannot be said to be arbitrary or unrelated to the object of the test, namely, selection of candidates for the b. Sc. (Ag) course. In his affidavit in support of the petition, the petitioner alleged that the following questions were put to him in the viva voce: "what is the extent of land owned by your family ? what are the crops you grow and how the said crops will be disposed of ? and what is the market value of crops ?" the above questions cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrelevant for the selection of candidates for the B. Sc. (Ag) course. what are the crops you grow and how the said crops will be disposed of ? and what is the market value of crops ?" the above questions cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrelevant for the selection of candidates for the B. Sc. (Ag) course. However, it was argued by Mr. Shivananjundappa that in the absence of any criterion laid down by the Regulations for holding the viva voce, the Selection Committee may abuse its powers by asking very simple and easy questions to some candidates and difficult questions to other candidates. A complete answer to this contention is found in the following observations of Subba Rao, J,, (as he then was), in Chitralekha v. State of mysore at p. 1831;"if there can be manipulation or dishonesty in allotting marks at interviews, there can equally be manipulation in the matter of awarding marks in the written examinations. In the ultimate analysis, whatever method is adopted its success depends on the moral standards of the members constituting the selection committee and their sense of objectivity and devotion of duty. This crticism is merely a reflection on the examiners than on the system itself. The scheme of selection, however perfect it may be on paper, may be abused in practice. That it is capable of abuse is not a ground for quashing it". ( 22 ) IT was next contended by Mr. Shivananjundappa that the marks secured by candidates in the relevant optional subjects only, in the qualifying examinations, should be taken into account and that the marks secured by candidates in languages, in those examinations, should not be taken into account, for assessing the relative merit of candidates for the purpose of selection for the B. Sc. (Ag) course. Mr. Shivananjundappa submitted that as the Regulations provide that a candidate should have passed the qualifying examination with not fewer than any of the two subjects, Physics, chemistry, Botany, Zoology or Biology, the marks secured by a candidate in those subjects only, are relevant and that the marks secured in languages are not relevant according to the Regulations. (Ag) course. Mr. Shivananjundappa submitted that as the Regulations provide that a candidate should have passed the qualifying examination with not fewer than any of the two subjects, Physics, chemistry, Botany, Zoology or Biology, the marks secured by a candidate in those subjects only, are relevant and that the marks secured in languages are not relevant according to the Regulations. ( 23 ) THE requirement in the Regulations that a candidate should have studied in at least two of certain science subjects, does not mean that the marks secured in those subjects only should be taken into account and that the marks secured in other subjects, namely, the languages, should not be taken into account, in assessing the relative merit of candidates for selection. Amended Regulation 10 states that 60 per cent of the aggregate marks obtained in the qualifying examination should be taken into account (along with the marks secured in the written test and the viva voce) for determining the relative merit. Hence, there is no force in the contention that under Regulation 10 marks secured in languages should not be taken into account. However, Mr. Shivananjundappa argued that for the purpose of admission to the B. Sc. (Ag.) course, the marks secured by candidates in languages are irrelevant. It was said that in making selection for admission to Engineering and Medical courses, the marks secured in the languages are not taken into account. Even if that be so, it does not follow that the performance of candidates in languages, are not relevant for the purpose of assessing the relative merit for admission to the B. Sc. (Ag) course. English is one of the subjects taught and is also a subject for the examination in the first year of the B. Sc. (Ag) course. Proficiency in languages cannot be said to be irrelevant even for students who pursue technical or professional courses. To read and understand even technical subjects and to express one's ideas, a good knowledge of languages is necessary. There is nothing unreasonable, in our opinion, in taking into account the marks obtained in languages for assessing relative merit of candidates. Lastly, it was contended for the petitioner that candidates not belonging to the families of agriculturists were selected and admitted to the b. Sc. (Ag) course and thereby the petitioner who cones from an agricultural family, was deprived of admission to that course. Lastly, it was contended for the petitioner that candidates not belonging to the families of agriculturists were selected and admitted to the b. Sc. (Ag) course and thereby the petitioner who cones from an agricultural family, was deprived of admission to that course. ( 24 ) MR. Venkatachala submitted that though in the prospectus issued by the University it was stated that candidates who normally belong to agricultural families should be selected to the B. Sc. (Ag) course, the selection committee made the selection purely on the basis of merit, subject to reservation for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes, irrespective of the candidates belonging or not belonging to agricultural families. ( 25 ) MR. SHIVANANJUNDAPPA has not shown any provision in the Act, statutes or Regulations under which any such preference could be given to students coming from agricultural families. As stated earlier, Regulation 10 specifically provides that selection of candidates within each of the categories, general and reserved, should be strictly on the basis of merit, and that such merit should be assessed on the basis of marks in the qualifying examinations, written test and viva voce. The statement in the prospectus that candidates who normally belong to agricultural families are eligible, does not appear to be based on any provision in the Act, Statutes, or Regulations, and can have no legal effect. Hence, the University authorities were justified in not giving any preference to candidates belonging to agricultural families. The petitioner can have no legitimate grievance on that score. ( 26 ) IT was faintly suggested by Mr. Shivananjundappa that Regulation 10 was amended and a new method of selection was adopted by the University authorities with a view to favour some candidates, and hence the new mode of selection should be held to be vitiated by malafides. As no such plea was taken in the petitioner's affidavit, we cannot permit such plea being raised for the first time at the stage of arguments. All the contentions of the petitioner fail and we dismiss this petition. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .