Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 824 (RAJ)

Ritesh Kumar v. J. N. V. University Jodhpur

1999-07-07

B.J.SHETHNA

body1999
Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner, who is a student, was admitted to the Course conducted by the faculty of Engineering of respondent, JNV University, Jodhpur has prayed in this petition that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the IVth Semester for Master of Computer Applications (MCA). It is further prayed that the action of the respondents debarring the petitio- ner from appearing in the Examination of IVth Semester of MCA be declared illegal. (2). This petition was filed on 9.10.1998 and moved for urgent orders before this Court (Honble Dr. B.S. CHOUHAN, J. ) on 9.10. 1998. (3). On 9.110. 1998 looking to the urgency of the matter by way of an ad interim order the petitioner was provisionally allowed to appear in the examination com- mencing from 10.10.98 to 13.10.98. (4). On 16.10.98 this Court (Honble Bhagwati Prasad, J.) passed one more interim order whereby the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination provisionally which was to be held on 17.10.98. However, it was made clear that the petitioner undertook that he will not claim any equities on the basis of the exa- mination taken by him. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time before the different Honble Judges of this Court. Yesterday i.e. on 6.7.99 when this matter had come up for orders before me, learned counsel Shri Bhandari for the respondents, produced the result of the petitioner in a sealed cover, which was opened in presence of both the learned counsel for the parties. After going through the result, Mr. Bhandari was directed to keep the papers of all five subjects of ``Course Examination on 7.7.99 i.e. today. The result was ordered to be handed over to Mr. Bhandari in a sealed cover. (5). Today, Dr. Shamsher Singh, Professor and Head of the Department of Computer Science and Engineering remained present along with the attendance register of all the students including the petitioner, whose name is at Sr. No. 18 and the marks obtained by him in Vth paper of C.S.E. 610-A-Artificial Intelligence. From the attendance register it is clear that out of 25 days the petitioner remained present only on 8 days and on 17 occasions he was absent. Therefore, he was only given 32 out of 100 marks for attendance. No. 18 and the marks obtained by him in Vth paper of C.S.E. 610-A-Artificial Intelligence. From the attendance register it is clear that out of 25 days the petitioner remained present only on 8 days and on 17 occasions he was absent. Therefore, he was only given 32 out of 100 marks for attendance. Whenever he was remaining present in the ex- amination of Course Work, he secured only 10 out of 100 marks for which no grievance was made by the petitioner that there was a mistake or an error in either totalling or giving marks. Thus, out of total of 200 marks, the petitioner secured 32 for attendance plus ten in the examination making a total of 42. Therefore, he was given only 4 marks out of 20 marks in the Vth paper. General information for stud- ents of M.C.A. Syllabus is on the record of this petition. Condition No. 6 (a) of the General Information for Students contained in the Syllabus for Master of Computer Applications reads as under;_ ``6.(a) A candidate who fails in the course work of any subject in any semester will not be eligible to appear in that semester examination and shall to repeat the whole semester as and when that semester course is run by the department. (6). Minimum required marks for passing was 10 out of 20 in the Course Works Examination in the Vth paper. Admittedly, the petitioner got only 4 marks, therefore, he was not allowed to appear in the IV th Semester Examination, which was to commence from 10 th October, 1998 to 13 th October, 1998. (7). The petitioner has tried to rely upon Clause 4 of the General Information for students and Ordinance 78-A for the purpose of appearing in the Examination but condition 6(a), which has been reproduced hereinabove, was not either reproduced or referred to. On the basis of the averments made in the petition by way of an interim order passed by this Court on 9th October, 1998, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination and by a subsequent order dated 16.10.98 it was made clear that the petitioner will not claim any equity on the basis of the examination. (8). Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that condition No.6(a) of General conditions of the syllabus is absolutely arbitrary, therefore, it is required to be struck down. (8). Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that condition No.6(a) of General conditions of the syllabus is absolutely arbitrary, therefore, it is required to be struck down. He submitted that condition 6(b) provides that if a candidate fails in not more than three units in each semester examination, and if obtains an aggregate of 50% marks in the grand total, he shall be allowed to be regular candidate in the next semester. Foot note to clause 6(b) also provides that a candidate who is unable to appear at the semester examination in some papers, practicals or sessionals, due to any reason whatsoever, shall be considered as having failed in these paper(s) and practical(s) and sessional(s) and he will be permitted to take the first makeup examination in those papers if his ag- gregate is more than 50% marks. But there is no relaxation or a provision for a candidate who fails in the course work and, that too in any subject in any semester for ATKT. (9). At first look, this submission advanced by Mr. Joshi looks attractive but it was rightly pointed by learned counsel Shri Bhandari for the respondents that such a stringent condition was required in the syllabus only with a view to secure the presence of the students and to know their general test held day to day by the Professor. If the student is not serious and if he is not responding in the course test then such student was debarred from appearing in the semester examination if he is failing in any one of the five subjects of the course work of that semester. (10). I have all sympathy for the petitioner, who is a student, that because of his absence and lack of preparation during the course test, he failed to get more than ten marks out of 20 marks in the course work. Under the interim order of the Court he was allowed to appear in the examination and he got 222 marks out of 500 marks in theory papers, which is much more than the minimum requirement of 35%. In practical, he got 184 out of 225, which is more than 50% requirement and in Lab Sessionals he got 61 marks out of 75 which is also more than 50% marks. He also got more than 50% marks in the course work. In practical, he got 184 out of 225, which is more than 50% requirement and in Lab Sessionals he got 61 marks out of 75 which is also more than 50% marks. He also got more than 50% marks in the course work. Total of five papers of course work is 67 marks which is more than 50% required marks. Unfortunately, as stated earlier, he failed in the Vth paper and got only 4 marks which is much less than mi- nimum 10 marks out of 20, therefore, he is declared failed. It is true that the petitioner had worked hard after he was given permission to appear in the examination of IV Semester. He would have been declared passed if he had cleared regular course work examination also. Merely because he was allowed to appear in the IVth Semester Examination under the order of the Court, he cannot be decla- red pass when he failed in one of the subjects of `course work of the IV Semester of MCA Exams. (11). Time and again Honble Supreme Court and this Court have said that the Court should be slow in interfering with the educational field. Though, I have all sympathy to the petitioner student, but no relief can be granted to the petitioner once he has failed in one of the subjects of course work in IVth Semester Examination. Hence, this petition is required to be dismissed. (12). Discipline in the students is the demand of the day. When they are going to get marks for their attendance, then they cannot afford to remain absent from attending the classes. The present petitioner has suffered only because out of 25 days he attended only 8 days and remained absent for 17 days, thereby secured only 32 marks. If he had attended all 25 days then he would have got 100 out of 100 marks. Meaning thereby 10 out of 20 and eve though he had got only 10 out of 100 marks in the examinations, he would have got one mark out of 10 making total 11 and without the orders of the court he would have appeared in the examination and also cleared IVth Semester Examination as per his result. This case should be an eye opener to the other students who are preferring to remain absent from the schools and colleges without any valid reasons. (13). This case should be an eye opener to the other students who are preferring to remain absent from the schools and colleges without any valid reasons. (13). For the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The assistance rendered by Dr. Shamsher Singh, Professor & Head of the Department, Master of Computer Applications, JNV University, Jodhpur is highly appreciated. The result sheet of the petitioner is handed to learned counsel Shri Bhandari in presence of Dr. Shamsher Singh.