Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 250 (GAU)

Ilalaya Konger v. Assam Agricultural University

2003-06-09

RANJAN GOGOI

body2003
JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. The Writ petitioner, after securing her B.Sc. degree in Agriculture, took admission in the Assam. Agricultural University at Jorhat to pursue the Post Graduate Course. She had joined in the Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics (P.B.G.) in the session that commenced from 1st August, 2001. 2. The Post Graduate course in the said University is a two years course divided into four semesters. The 1st year of the P.G. course is called the 5th year where the 2nd year of the course is described as the 6th year. 3. The petitioner successfully completed that 1st semester of the 5th year of Post Graduate Studies and accordingly, registered her name in the 5th year, 2nd semester, which was due to commence with effect from 1.2.2002. According to the writ petitioner, the University had published, a list of the different courses available for a student to be registered and in the said list which particular course was available in which semester was mentioned. Further more, according to the writ petitioner it was not specified in the list published by the University that any particular course was available either in the 5th or 6th year of studies and reference to the availability of courses/subjects were in respect of the semesters. One of the subjects/courses for which the petitioner registered her name was the course in "Resistance Breeding" which was identified as Course No. PBG-518. Her registration appears to have been made on 23.1.2002 and was countersigned by the Advisor, Head of the Department as well as the Dean. The petitioner, co-incidentally, was the only student to have registered for the aforesaid course, i.e., PBG-518. 4. After registering herself as noticed above, the petitioner claims to have applied for leave for a period of 15 days with effect from 1.2.2002 to go to Delhi on a private visit. A copy of the leave application enclosed as Annexure III to the writ application, would go to show that the same was forwarded to the Direction, Post Graduate Studies, by the Head of the Department, the Major Advisor and also by the Warden of the Hostel in which the petitioner was residing. The petitioner further claims that she returned from Delhi and commenced her classes on 18.2.2002. The petitioner further claims that she returned from Delhi and commenced her classes on 18.2.2002. The Course Instructor of PBG-518 refused to hold any classes in the said course on the ground that the same was available only to the students of the 6th year 2nd semester. The petitioner submitted an application to the Director of Post Graduate Studies on 7.3.2002 drawing the attention of the said authority that the Course PBG-518 in which she was registered not being available in the particular semester, she may be allowed, to change the aforesaid course and register herself in another course, i.e., P.B.G.-522. The Director of Post Graduate Studies, by an order passed, on the body of the application itself on the vary next day, i.e., 8.3.2002, rejected the request of the petitioner for change of the course on the ground that under the Regulations in force any request for change of course must be made within 15 days of the commencement of the semester. As the aforesaid decision of the Director was perhaps not communicated to the petitioner in time, she submitted another application to the Director on 1.4.2002 reiterating her aforesaid request in which it was categorically mentioned that though not registered against the particular course, the petitioner had been attending the classes of course No. P.B.G.-522 and, therefore, consequential changes in her registration may be allowed. It appears that another similar request in writing was made by the petitioner on 8.4.2002 which was recommended for acceptance by the Head of the Department. The Head of the Department, it appears, was subsequently taken to task and asked to show cause as to why he had recommended the deletion of the course PBG-518 in the registration card of the petitioner. The Head of the Department by his letter dated 13.5.2002, inter alia, submitted that at the time when he countersigned the registration card of the petitioner registering her for the course PBG-518 he was not aware of the fact that the said course was available only in the 6th semester. The Head of the Department by his letter dated 13.5.2002, inter alia, submitted that at the time when he countersigned the registration card of the petitioner registering her for the course PBG-518 he was not aware of the fact that the said course was available only in the 6th semester. The request of the petitioner for change of course was eventually placed before the Students' Scholastic Committee and a decision was taken by the said committee that as the writ petitioner had not submitted her request for withdrawal/change of course within 15 days from the date of commencement of the semester as requirement under Regulation 2.6.2005 of the Regulation on academic matters, 1989, the request for withdrawal/change cannot be entertained. The aforesaid decision of the Scholastic Committee was communicated to the writ petitioner on 5th September, 2002 by a letter of the Director of Post Graduate Studies of the University. 5. While the aforesaid developments in respect of the request of the petitioner for change of course was going on, naturally, the classes of the 5th year, 2nd semester, continued and the petitioner attended the classes of all other course for which she was registered except the classes of the course PBG-518. The 5th year, 2nd semester examination, it appears, was held some time in August/September, 2002 and the petitioner appeared in the examination of all the subjects except PBG-518. Upon declaration of the results of the 2nd Semester examination, the petitioner applied for registration in the 6th year, 1st semester, some time, in the month of October, 2002, Registration was refused, to the petitioner on the ground that her results in course PBG-518 having been withheld she would not be eligible for registration/admission in the 6th year, 1st semester. The petitioner immediately represented before the Registrar of the University in writing on 26th October praying for appropriate intervention of the said authority in the matter. The response of the Registrar not being positive as indicated in the communication dated 1st November, 2002 and, in the meantime, a notice having been issued for the repeat examination to be held on 18th November, 2002, the petitioner sought permission to appear in the said repeat examination so far as Course No. PBG-518 is concerned. Simultaneously the instant writ petition was filed wherein an interim order was issued by this Court permitting the petitioner to participate in the repeat examination. Simultaneously the instant writ petition was filed wherein an interim order was issued by this Court permitting the petitioner to participate in the repeat examination. What happened, thereafter, is not clear but the stand of the University authority appears to be that the repeat examination are for those candidates who had either failed or were absent in one particular subject/course and who had been provisionally promoted to the next semester subject to their clearing the subject/course in which they had failed or were absent. According to the University authorities, the petitioner had neither failed nor was absent in the examination held in respect of Course No. PBG-518. The said course was not available at all for being pursued by the petitioner in the 5th year, 2nd semester. The petitioner was not, therefore, eligible for provisional registration in the 6th year, 1st semester and to sit in the repeat examination. 6. The official respondents by filing an affidavit has controverted the pleadings made in the writ petition as well as the reliefs claimed. According to the University that the course PBG No. 518 was not available for being pursued in the 5th year, 2nd Semester, was made known by a circular issued by the University on 29.1.2002, a copy of which has been brought on record. The petitioner could not have offered the aforesaid course and therefore could not have been registered against the said course. The course itself was not available for being pursued by the petitioner. Under the relevant Regulations in force, requests for change of course must be made within 15 days of the commencement of a semester. This time schedule cannot be altered as it has been so fixed to maintain academic discipline and standards. Being a highly professional course, students cannot be registered against alternative courses after expiry of 15 days as the remaining period of the semester would not permit pursuit of the course to the full extent. The petitioner was unauthorisedly absent without leave for the entire month of February inasmuch as the leave application was never forwarded to the Director of Post Graduate Studies. Not only was the request for change belatedly made it was not routed through the Office of the Major Advisor, as mandatorily required under Regulation 2.6.2005. The petitioner was unauthorisedly absent without leave for the entire month of February inasmuch as the leave application was never forwarded to the Director of Post Graduate Studies. Not only was the request for change belatedly made it was not routed through the Office of the Major Advisor, as mandatorily required under Regulation 2.6.2005. In any case, as an exceptional measure the University authorities had offered the course No. PBG-518 to the petitioner and offered her registration against the said course in the 5th year, 2nd semester, with effect from 1.2.2003. The petitioner has declined to accept the said order. The above is the broad stand taken by the University authorities before this Court in the affidavits filed. 7. While the writ petition continued to remain pending, the writ petitioner seems to have had a change of mind. A Misc. application was filed on 22.4.2003 stating that the petitioner would not be interested in rejoining the University, even if the actions of the authority as impugned in the writ proceeding are found to be illegal by this Court. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for award of monetary compensation, by way of alternative relief, in the event the adjudication goes in her favour. 8. The pleadings of the respective parties as narrated in details in the proceeding paragraphs make it abundantly clear that the core facts are not in any serious dispute. The petitioner was registered in the 5th year, 2nd semester, Post Graduate Course and one of the subjects/courses for which she was registered, i.e., PBG-518 was not available for being pursued in the 5th year, 2nd semester. The registration granted to the petitioner against the said course inspite of it not being available had the approval of the Head of the Department as well as the Dean. The petitioner was absent from the University from 1.2.2002 and she rejoin her classes on 18.2.2002. Whether such absence had the approval of the authority or not, though in dispute, would not be of much relevance in view of facts stated hereinafter. The petitioner was the only student to have been registered against the said course, i.e., PBG-518. She submitted applications in writing on 7.3.2002, 1.4.2002 and 8.4.2002 for a change of course and registration in course No. PBG-522 in place of PBG-518. The petitioner was the only student to have been registered against the said course, i.e., PBG-518. She submitted applications in writing on 7.3.2002, 1.4.2002 and 8.4.2002 for a change of course and registration in course No. PBG-522 in place of PBG-518. The application dated 8.4.2002 was recommended by the Head of the Department who himself was not aware of the fact that Course No. PBG-518 was not available in the 5th year, 2nd semester. The circular dated 29.1.2002 relied on by the University to contend that it was made clear by the aforesaid circular that Course No. PBG-518 was available only in the 6th year, 2nd semester, would not be of much relevance as the petitioner's registration was effected on 23.1.2002. The petitioner's representations for change of course was turned down by the University, on the ground that the same was not permissible under Regulation 2.6.2005 as the same was not submitted within the mandatory period of 15 days from the date of commencement of the semester. The request for registration of the petitioner in the 6th year, 1st semester, even on a provisional basis, and to allow her to take the repeat examination and clear the course No. PBG-518 was disallowed on the ground that as the course was not available and, as the petitioner had not attended any classes, she did not fall in the category of a student who had failed or who was absent in the main examination so as to entitle her to take the repeat examination. It is the aforesaid justifications of the University authorities for the impugned actions and decisions that will now have to be judged. 9. Even if this Court is to construe Clause 2.06.05 of the Regulations on academic matters, providing a time frame of 15 days for change of a course initially offered by a student, as sacrosanct, permitting no departure, the aforesaid clause, in the considered opinion of the Court, would have no application to the facts of the present case. Clause 2.06.05 would apply only in cases where courses available for being pursued is sought to be changed by a student on subsequent assessment and change of mind. Clause 2.06.05 would apply only in cases where courses available for being pursued is sought to be changed by a student on subsequent assessment and change of mind. It is difficult to comprehend as to how when the course itself was not available for being pursued and the University authorities had permitted the student to enroll herself against the said course, her request for a change over could be refused by resorting to Clause 2.06.05. If the course itself was not available, the petitioner should not have been registered and if she had been wrongly registered, the University authorities were duty bound to register the student against a available course even without a request being made to the effect. The consequences of not doing so would be enormous, the student was certain to lose one semester. Public bodies performing public duties and dealing with right of citizens, and in the instant case the career of a student, must be vigilant, prompt and attentive and must spare no efforts to remedy the mischief which is likely to occur. The standard by which the actions of the authority must be judged are the standards of a reasonable man. Even assuming the stand of the University to be correct, i.e., that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for the whole of the month of February, nothing could have prevented the University from realising that the petitioner has been wrongly registered against the Course No. PBG-518. The aforesaid mistake must have been detected immediately on commencement of the semester yet nothing was done. The University need not have waited for a representation from the petitioner ; yet it waited and eventually when such a representation was filed it was rejected on the ground that 15 days was over. That the petitioner was available in the University and she was attending the classes in the other courses on and from 18.2,2002 is evident from the materials on records. Yet no attempt to remedy the situation was initiated. The inaction of the University authorities and the eventual rejection of the representation of the petitioner had immense significance. The inevitable consequence that was bound to follow is that the petitioner would suffer though she was not at fault. Changes according to the authority, could be made only in the next semester which obviously meant the petitioner would have to loss one semester, i.e., six month. The inevitable consequence that was bound to follow is that the petitioner would suffer though she was not at fault. Changes according to the authority, could be made only in the next semester which obviously meant the petitioner would have to loss one semester, i.e., six month. Not only that when the petitioner wanted registration in the 6th year, 1st semester on a provisional basis, the rule was once again shown to her ; she had neither failed nor she was absent in the examination and, therefore, she would not be eligible for provisional registration in the 6th year, 1st semester. A little accommodation and departure could perhaps have been easily made without doing any violence to the norms in force. The petitioner claims to have attended the classes in the course PBG-522 to which she wanted to change over from PBG-518. The averments to the above fact have not been denied. If that be so, nothing prevented the University authorities to grant provisional registration to the petitioner and allow her to take the repeat examination in the course PBG-522 instead of PBG-518. Eventually what was offered was re-admission in the 5th year, 2nd semester commencing from 1.2.2003. The petitioner having already been registered in the 5th year, 2nd semester with effect from 1.2.2002, the 'offer' made by the University entailed loss of one year. The petitioner can hardly be blamed for wanting to part ways with the University. 10. The conduct and actions of the University does not even remotely come up to the level of conduct of a statutory body performing public duties and dealing with the rights and the career of a student. The conduct and actions displayed by the University authorities appear to be indifferent, callous and arbitrary if not vindictive and mala fide. Accountability appears to have been lost sight of. The petitioner has undoubtedly suffered. Her rights to fair treatment have been denied and the situation must now be remedied. 11. As evident from the materials on record, the petitioner would have qualified as a post graduate in August, 2003 had the studies been pursued in the normal course. Even the most favourable directions for re-admission of the petitioner in the University would entail a minimum loss of over a year to the petitioner. The petitioner has clearly expressed her desire not to go back to the University and has sought monetary compensation, instead. Even the most favourable directions for re-admission of the petitioner in the University would entail a minimum loss of over a year to the petitioner. The petitioner has clearly expressed her desire not to go back to the University and has sought monetary compensation, instead. Relief in the facts stated above by way of re-admission would hardly be adequate. The grievances of the petitioner, at the same time, cannot be adequately met by a mere declaration of illegality of the actions of the University. The situation has to be remedied in a more meaningful manner and the possibility of grant of monetary compensation must be necessary explored by this Court. 12. The law has been succinctly laid down by the Apex Court in the Lucknow Development Authority v. M. Gupta, reported in and had been reiterated in the subsequent decision in the case of Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. University of Calcutta reported in . Citizens have a remedy in public law against oppressive and capricious acts of the Public Officers and grant of monetary compensation for such acts must be made if the facts so justify. Such grant of monetary compensation would be in enforcement of the doctoring of accountability of Public authorities as well as for vindicating the Rule of law. It would act as a reminder to all concerned that the Public authorities are accountable for their actions and are liable to pay damages occasioned by irresponsible, arbitrary and capricious actions. The determination of the quantum of compensation, however, who brings in an element of subjectivity. However, the quantum would be immaterial; what is important is the indictment. The petitioner was in the University residing in one of the hostels for a period of over a year. She must have also incurred some expenditure in connection with the present litigation. A set back in her career has definitely occurred. Having regard to the totality of the facts of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the Assam Agricultural University is directed to pay a total compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the writ petitioner within a period of 30 days from today. The writ petition shall stand answered accordingly.