Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 968 (JHR)

Rohit DCruz v. Xaviers Labour Relations Institute

2003-08-08

M.Y.EQBAL

body2003
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.4.2003 issued by respondent No. 3, Dr. E.M. Rao, Dean (Academics) and Professor (PM & IR) Xaviers Labour Relations Institute directing the petitioner to withdraw from the Personal Management Course and further prayed for re- evaluation of his result after giving consideration to the recommendation of the Member Placement Committee and also permit him to continue his course. 2. Petitioner joined the course of Personal Management and Industrial Relations (PM & IR) in the Xaviers Labour Relations Institute (in short XLRI) at Jamshedpur in the Academic Session 2002-2004 and was allotted Roll No. 37. Petitioners case is that due to the nature of the duties assigned to him by the Committee he missed several classes due to the late hours he had to put in being in the logistic team and would often have to run to the railway station at odd hours, escort company representatives to and from railway stations, hotels, perform hotel bookings, book railway tickets. He thus had to stay up nights from many nights and thus missed classes and was delayed in submitting reports, projects, assignments etc. It is stated by the petitioner while he was undergoing his Summer Internship at Mumbai in the Bombay S.T. Corp. of India he received a letter dated 10.4.2003 under the signature of respondent No. 3 whereby he was informed that he had secured "D" grades in four courses and as such he was required to repeat the first year in its entirety, or in the alternative, withdraw from the programme. Petitioner informed respondent No. 3 that he was not satisfied with the Grade awarded to him, which was only due to absence from classes. Petitioner requested the respondent- Dean to look into the matter otherwise he would lose a year. Petitioner alleged that he was never informed by the respondent that his absence from classes and delay in submitting projects etc. would be detrimental to his studies. All of a sudden, the impugned letter dated 21.4.2003 was issued by the petitioner informing him that he had secured one more D + grade and as such he is required to withdraw from the programme. 3. Respondent Nos. would be detrimental to his studies. All of a sudden, the impugned letter dated 21.4.2003 was issued by the petitioner informing him that he had secured one more D + grade and as such he is required to withdraw from the programme. 3. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed counter-affidavit seriously questioning the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground inter alia that respondent-Xaviers Labour Relations Institute is neither a State nor the instrumentality of the State and has not discharging any public duty and therefore it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Respondents case is that petitioner secured not a single A + or A in any course taught in any of the three terms covering 23 courses during the first year and his academic performance was consistently poor throughout the first year. It is stated that as per the Rule 25 of the Student Manual 2002 if the student obtains lower grade i.e. D and F during the first and second year and Cumulative Quality Point Index (CQPI) obtained by the student at the end of first year and at the end of second year will stand disqualified from pursuing the programme. According to the respondents the Placement Committee is constituted by the students, the election to the Committee are conducted by the students and the institute has no role whatsoever to play in the process and has nothing to do with the affairs of the Placement Committee. Petitioner voluntarily opted to become a member of the Placement Committee and therefore even if the petitioner was opted in the form of the placement committee that will not be excluded from attending the classes. Respondents further case in the counter affidavit is that as soon as the tally of D grades reached four, the petitioner was promptly and without any delay informed to the effect that he was required to repeat the programme from the first year de novo. Thereafter, the grades of other courses were received from the faculty concerned and when it was found that he obtained one more D grade in the course (Production Management), consequently impugned letter was issued to the petitioner requiring him to withdraw from the programme. Action to the respondents is therefore perfectly justified. 4. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned letter issued by the respondents as being illegal and wholly unjustified. Action to the respondents is therefore perfectly justified. 4. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned letter issued by the respondents as being illegal and wholly unjustified. Learned counsel firstly submitted that although petitioner requested by letter dated 14.2.2003 Cor re-evaluation of the papers as he has been victimized on the ground that delay and absence from the courses which was not for his own fault but because of the assessment giver, to him by the Placement Committee. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned letter is harsh and completely jeopardize petitioners education career, which is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the decision of the respondents which was communicated by the impugned letter is fully justified and in accordance with conditions contained in the Student Manual. 6. Before appreciating the rival contention of the respondents, I would like to refer relevant clauses of the Student Manual, which has been referred by both the counsels. A copy of the Student Manual has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. Clause 8 provides that it would be mandatory for the students to be regular and punctual in all the classes without exceptions. Absence without prior permission of the Dean and the faculty will be considered a serious breach of discipline. In such an event, the student may be directed to withdraw from the programme with no stigma attached. Clause 8.3 provides that "students should ensure that the attendance requirements as stipulated in this section, are met no matter whatever may be the other compulsions. 7. It is also relevant to reproduce Clause 21.8 and 21.9 of the Manual which reads as under : "Clause 21.8. Students are required to strictly adhere to the deadlines prescribed for the submission of all written assignments, projects, and reports. Late submission is liable to be visited with reduction in grade as indicated hereunder : Delay Reduction Example I week or less I grade point From B + to B 2 weeks or less 2 grade points From B + to C+ 3 weeks or less 3 grade points From B + to C Clause 21.9. Normal requests for re-evaluation.--Re- evaluation of examination/term paper is not normally permitted. Normal requests for re-evaluation.--Re- evaluation of examination/term paper is not normally permitted. If on a request made by a student for re-evaluation, the faculty member concerned may at his discretion re-value the answer book, and submit the revised grade, if any, before the publication of the same by the Deans office. 8. It is also very relevant to quote entire Clause 25 of the Student Manual, which reads as under : "25.1. Qualifying Standards, The qualifying standards of the students for the promotion to senior classes, continuation in the programmes, and successful completion of the post-graduate diploma programmes are given below : 25.2. Minimum COPI at the end of first and second years-- Disqualification.--(a) 4.00 at the end of the first year (sum-total of Terms-I, II and III). (b) 4.50 at the end of second year (sum-total of Terms- I to VI). (c) If the CQPI falls below 4.00 at the end of first year, or below 4.50 at the end of second year, the student will stand disqualified for pursing the programme further and, accordingly, she he will be directed to withdraw from the programme with no stigma attached. (d) If the student does not withdraw from the programme within a fortnight after being so directed, she he will be liable for expulsion from the Institute. 25.3. Course-wise Minimum Grades-Disqualification.--(a) If, at any time during the first year, a student secures-(i) 3 F; or (ii) 2 F&1 D; or (iii) 1 F & 3 D or (iv) 5 D or worse-she he will stand disqualified for pursuing the programme further, and, accordingly she will be directed to withdraw from the programme with no stigma attached. (b) If, at any time during the second year, a student accumulates (beginning from Term-I) (i) 3 F; or (11) 2 F & 1 D; or (iii) IF D; or (iv) 5 D or worse-she will stand disqualified for pursuing the programme further, and, accordingly she will be directed to withdraw from the programme with no stigma attached. (c) If the student does not withdraw from the programme within a fortnight after being so directed under (a) or (b) above, she will be liable for expulsion from the Institute. 25.4. (c) If the student does not withdraw from the programme within a fortnight after being so directed under (a) or (b) above, she will be liable for expulsion from the Institute. 25.4. Course-wise Minimum Grades-Option of Repetition.--(a) If, at any time during first year, a student secures (i) 2 F; or (ii) 1 F & 2 D; or (iii) 4 D - she will have the option of either repeating the first year in its entirety OR withdrawing from the programme. (b) If it is found that, at any time during second year, a student has accumulated (beginning from Term I) - (i) 2 F; or (ii) 1 F & 2 D; or (iii) 4 D-she will have the option of selecting any one course of the 2nd year where she obtained D or F and repeating it as a regular it as a regular course as and when offered, OR withdrawing from the programme. (c) If, after repetition as above, the student still secures-(i) 2 F; or (ii) 1 F & 2 D; or (iii) 4 D, as stipulated in (a) above, OR (i) 2 F; (11) 1 F and 2 D; or (iii) 4 D, as stipulated in (b) above - she will stand disqualified for pursuing the programme further, and, accordingly she will be directed to withdraw from the programme with no stigma attached. In other words, no second repetition is permitted under any circumstances, (d) If the student does not withdraw from the programme within a fortnight after being so directed under (a) or (b) above, she will be liable for expulsion from the Institute, (e) The maximum time permitted to complete the programme is 3 (three) continuous academic years including any repetition a student may undertake. 25.4. Grade D mentioned in this Rule represents both D and D+. 9. From reading of the above-referred clauses, it is manifest that a candidate will stand disqualified from pursuing the programme if he or she obtains Cumulative quality Point Index (CQPI) of less than 4.0-0 at the end of first year. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that he has not obtained a single A + or A in 23 courses taught during the first year rather he attended only few classes and his performance was consistently below standard. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that he has not obtained a single A + or A in 23 courses taught during the first year rather he attended only few classes and his performance was consistently below standard. Since the petitioner at the end of first year accumulated 5 D grades in 5 different courses thereby referring himself disqualified from pursuing programme further. 10. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that he secured 4D grades. He was informed vide letter-dated 10.4.2003 and was directed to repeat the programme from first year or to withdraw from the programme. When the Grades of other courses were received from the faculty concerned, it was found that petitioner obtained one more D grade in the course Production Management which resulted in issuance of impugned letter asking the petitioner to withdraw from the programme. 11. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner put heavy reliance on Annexure-4 which is a letter written by M/s. "Rupali Varms, Member, Placement Committee and submitted that Placement Committee informed the Director of the Institute that the petitioner was engaged in the duty of the Placement Committee and his case was strongly recommended for not being penalized. The said M/s. "Rupali Varms, Member Placement Committee has been made respondent No. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 Member of the Placement Committee, it is stated that Committee is exclusively constituted by the students who elect their representatives and the committee has nothing to do with the academic, ad- ministration or curricular activities of XLRI. Petitioner of his own volunteered to work for the logistic team constituted by the Placement Committee. There was no obligation on the part of any student to work for the Placement Committee and it is on the sole discretion and free will of the students to volunteer to work for the Placement Committee. With regard to the letter (Annexure 4) it is stated that the said letter was issued at the earnest request of the petitioner notwithstanding the fact then respondent No. 4 has no authority or right whatsoever tq represent the case of the petitioner. It is because of consistent request the aforementioned letter was issued to the Institute, which is purely on compassionate ground. It is because of consistent request the aforementioned letter was issued to the Institute, which is purely on compassionate ground. Respondent No. 4 further stated in the counter- affidavit that Placement Committee has no authority to recommend to any faculty to give marks or to show lenience or to condone default of any other student in respect of attendance or submission of reports or competition of project assigned to him or her. 12. As noticed above, admittedly the petitioner having full knowledge of the fact that he had secured 3 "D" Grade and 5 "C+" and "C" Grades and any other addition of "D" grades would operate to his own detriment. When the petitioner obtained 4 "D" grades, he was immediately informed and asked to repeat the programme from the first year de novo or in the alternative to withdraw from the programme as provided under 25.4 of the Student Manual. Thereafter, grades of other courses were received from the faculty concerned and it was found that he obtained one more "D" Grade in the course, the impugned order was issued. From perusal of the attendance sheet it appears that petitioner had attended 10 Sessions out of a total 19 Sessions and the attendance reached much below which warranted reduction of 2 grade points. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned letter issued by the Institute directing the petitioner to withdraw from the courses cannot be said to be illegal, mal fide or unjustified. 13. Normally, decision taken by the educational authority in academic matters Court should be very slow in interfering with the same. In the instant case, admittedly, the Institute has taken a decision directing the petitioner to withdraw from the courses is in accordance with the Rules and Regulations contained in the Student Manual. In that view of the matter, it would not be proper to interfere with the decision taken by the Institute by issuing the impugned order. In the instant case, admittedly, the Institute has taken a decision directing the petitioner to withdraw from the courses is in accordance with the Rules and Regulations contained in the Student Manual. In that view of the matter, it would not be proper to interfere with the decision taken by the Institute by issuing the impugned order. In the case of Bhushan Uttam Khare v. Dean, B.J. Medical College and Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 220 , while considering the similar question held as under : "We have considered all the materials placed before us in the light of argument advanced keeping in mind the well accepted principle that in deciding the matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions, the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. We are satisfied that there had been sufficient material before the Executive Council to proceed in the manner in which it has done. It is not correct to say that the University had accepted on non-existent rule for ordering revaluation. Ordinance 146 is comprehensive enough to include revaluation also for further action. The fact that two examiners were also the members of the Committee which recommended for revaluation cannot result in any bias even if they had been directly concerned with the original evaluation. It is true that in the second revaluation also there had been some changes between the original valuation and the revaluation results. However, it is not so glaring or demonstrably unconscionable as seen in the first revaluation, we cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the petitioner that the High Court had erred in not granting the relief sought for. We can only observe that the case of the petitioner, who alone has come before this Court and who had secured higher marks in the first revaluation and is, therefore, aggrieved by the cancellation of the same, would be duly considered in the selection for postgraduate course. The special leave petition is dismissed." 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned letter issued by the respondents needs no interference and no relief can be granted to the petitioner- This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.