Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1112 (MP)

Ashish Rai v. Govt. Engineering College, Jabalpur

2002-12-19

ARUN MISHRA

body2002
ORDER : 1. The controversy in these two petitions raised by the petitioners is that they are not allowed to appear in the Vth semester of the B.E. Course conducted by the Rajeev Gandhi Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya. The petitioners are held not eligible in terms of the provision of clause 3.7 of the Ordinance No. 4 on the ground that the petitioners have not cleared the paper of first and second semesters of the B.E. course. 2. The petitioners in W.P. No. 6206/2002, submits that the petitioners were selected for B.E. in the year 2000, they were given admission in the first year in the Government Engineering College, Jabalpur. The concerned University is the Rajeev Gandhi Prodyogiki Vishwavidyala. Admission were delayed due to the formation of the Chhattisgarh State. The counselling was held on 15/16 November, last counselling was held on 20th and 22nd January, 2002 and exams of three semesters were conducted in the year 2001 by the said Vishwavidyalaya i.e. respondent No. 1. As session was started belatedly the petitioners have got the right to continue the other semesters. They have deposited fee Rs. 4,000/- as well as examination fee and they were given the admission in the next semesters. They submit that interpretation of Clause 3.7 of Ordinance 4 put by respondent Vishwavidyalaya is not proper. The petitioners were rightly admitted to the semester concerned now respondent cannot turn round and contend that they were wrongly admitted to the next semester. Similar fact exists in the W.P. No. 7130/2002 in addition question is also raised that the petitioners had applied for revaluation and it has been informed that there is no change in his marks. 3. Return has been filed by the respondent University and it is contended that the names of the petitioners were not forwarded by the College to the University as the petitioners have not cleared the papers of first/second semesters. Thus, action of the University is based on Clause 3.7 of the Ordinance No. 4 is proper and call for no interference. Students were admitted in the month of July, 2000 and teaching commenced in September, 2000. Second semester was commenced when the first semester was over and the result was declared. Duration of the course is four years. 4. Thus, action of the University is based on Clause 3.7 of the Ordinance No. 4 is proper and call for no interference. Students were admitted in the month of July, 2000 and teaching commenced in September, 2000. Second semester was commenced when the first semester was over and the result was declared. Duration of the course is four years. 4. Shri Sekher, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been rightly admitted and deposited the fees and they are illegally deprived from appearing in the examination. A decision was taken on 23-4-2002 on the mercy ground to allow all the students to appear in the MCA but similar treatment is not meted out to the B.E. students. 5. Shri S.L. Saxena, Senior counsel for the University contends that action is proper. Course of four years cannot be reduced. There is no illegality or infirmity in the action and the same is according to Clause 3.7 of the Ordinance No. 4 No mercy can be showed to reduce the course and relax clause 3.7. No decision was taken at any point to grant the mercy to the students of B.E. new course. The names were not sent to the University by the College as petitioners have not cleared I/II semester papers. 6. To decide the controversy according to clause 3.7 of Ordinance No. 4 is the relevant provision. The same is quoted below: “3.7. A candidate shall not be admitted in the fifth or higher semester classes unless he/she has fully passed cleared the first and second semester examinations. Likewise candidates shall not be admitted in seventh or higher semester classes unless he/she has fully passed/cleared the first four semester examinations. For promotion to the next higher semester, the sequence shall be strictly adhered to.” 7. A bare perusal of clause 3.7 it makes clear that the petitioners cannot appear in the fifth semester as they have not cleared the first and second semester examination. Reliance has been placed on clause 3.8 of the Ordinance No. 4 by the petitioners. The same is quoted below: “3.8. A candidate will be promoted to the available semester of the next academic year provided he/she does not carry a backlog of more than five theory or combination of five theory and practical (taken together) of the immediate previous year.” 8. The same is quoted below: “3.8. A candidate will be promoted to the available semester of the next academic year provided he/she does not carry a backlog of more than five theory or combination of five theory and practical (taken together) of the immediate previous year.” 8. Thus, in my opinion, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on clause 3.8 is of no avail. As the petitioners have not right to appear in the examination and admission in Vth Semester until unless they cleared I/II semester completely. They have firstly to clear the examination of first and second semesters as mentioned in clause 3.7. Clause 3.7 is not restricted by clause 3.8 in any manner. Clause 3.8 put additional imbargo not to carry more papers then provided in clause 3.8. The word ‘previous’ year means preceding semester held in previous year for example student cannot carry more then five papers of IIIrd and IV semesters to Vth semester. 9. It is contended that as the University conducted the first semester in February, Second Semester in June and third Semester in December, 2001, thus, University cannot be allowed to act in such manner and render the course of two and half years, submission is of no assistance to advance the cause of petitioners course cannot be reduced less than four years and restriction put by clause 3.7 of Ordinance is to be given full effect. It cannot be said that the petitioner have been wrongly deprived from appearing in the fifth semester examination. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that mercy treatment was meted out to the students of B.E. as reflected in document P/10. It is clear that the mercy treatment was extended in different context. The common syllabus and ordinance was introduced in all the Institutions of M.P. affiliated to the University. First four semesters are being taught with this common syllabus. However, the old students, who were studying previous syllabus might have failed in these lower semesters and may not be eligible for admission in Vth semester. The students, who will not be eligible in coming session due to failing in I and II semester, the problems will arise in future that either parallel classes for V and VI semester should be held for old students separately and for new students separately. The students, who will not be eligible in coming session due to failing in I and II semester, the problems will arise in future that either parallel classes for V and VI semester should be held for old students separately and for new students separately. Thus mercy treatment was given in totally different context and is of no help to the petitioners. Court has to go by provision and cannot order the reduction of course less than four years and relaxation of clause 3.7. However, the petitioners are free to approach the University for mercy, if any. However, the course of B.E. cannot be reduced less than four years by extending mercy, if any, has to be ensured by the University. 11. Merely by provisional admission no right accrued in favour of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the University is at fault. The provisional admission was awaiting the result of I/II semester in any case. The petitioners very well knew the provision of clause 3.7 of the Ordinance No. 4 and the same clearly indicates that they have to clear the paper of first and second semester before they are regularly admitted in the Vth semester. Their names were rightly not forwarded by the concerned Colleges to the University. The petitioners are free to file mercy appeal. In case the mercy appeal is allowed the same is not to be treated as precedent in future. However, University has to consider that course of four years is not reduced to two and half year or three years. It has to be four years course. I have not expressed any opinion on merit of the mercy petition. It is for the petitioners to make mercy appeal to the University not for this Court to issue any direction in that matter. 12. The writ petitions are dismissed with the observation mentioned above.