Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 55 (UTT)

Saurab Kandari v. G. B. Pant University

2004-05-15

RAJESH TANDON

body2004
JUDGMENT By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of dropping the petitioner passed on the mark sheet of Semester II. A further prayer is made for permitting the petitioner to participate in the examination of IIInd Semester of Bachelor of Technology (Civil Engineering) of G.B. Pant University of Pantnagar. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition according to the petitioner are that the petitioner is a student of IInd Semester of degree programme in Bachelor of Technology (Civil Engineering), bearing I.D. No. 29353 of the year 2002-2003 of the Batch of 2002. The entire examination of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, as will appear from the academic regulations, is governed by the Grade Point Average known as C.G.P.A. 3. According to the petitioner, in the first Semester, his Grade Point Average was 4.946 and in the second Semester, his Grade Point Average was 4.978. Therefore, the cumulative Grade Point Average comes to 4.962. According to the petitioner, he was kept on academic probation by the respondents in accordance with the regulations of the University. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed that according to the provisions of the Academic Regulations of the University, if at the end of any Semester during which the undergraduate student had been on academic probation and the cumulative grade point average of both the Semesters is less than 5, he shall be dropped from the University with a right for readmission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that during the second Semester, the petitioner became ill in the final examination as a result of which, he could not secure satisfactory marks in Mathematics II and as such, he was kept on Academic Probation during the second Semester due to less marks in first Semester in Mathematics. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when the Average marks in the first Semester in Mathematics were not up to the mark, the University Authorities should not have provided Mathematics II as a subject to the petitioner in the second Semester. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when the Average marks in the first Semester in Mathematics were not up to the mark, the University Authorities should not have provided Mathematics II as a subject to the petitioner in the second Semester. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was admitted in the third Semester as well and he has paid the entire fees on 4th August, 2003 after being asked to deposit the same by the University Authorities. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University, wherein, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was kept on Academic Probation during second Semester as his Grade Point Average was less than 6 out of 10 in the first Semester of first year of B.Tech. Civil Engineering 2002-2003. So far as the payment of fees for third Semester is concerned, there is no denial of this fact in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has deposited the fees. In reply to the contention of the petitioner that when the Average marks in the first Semester in Mathematics were not up to the mark, the University Authorities should not have provided Mathematics II as a subject to the petitioner in the second Semester, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been provided the subject according to the Rules and Regulations of the University . 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Rule 44(b), where the Vice Chancellor has been given the power to permit a fourth chance to the student on the recommendation of the Advisor and Dean concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred this Court's order passed in Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2002 (M/S); Govind Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology & others dated 18.6.2003, the same is quoted below: "Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Dobhal learned counsel for the G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was allowed to appear in the second semester in the course of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (B. V. Sc.). The petitioner could appear in the examination after permission of this Court only and secured 59.75 marks. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was allowed to appear in the second semester in the course of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (B. V. Sc.). The petitioner could appear in the examination after permission of this Court only and secured 59.75 marks. Regulation 30(3) of the Academic Regulations of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology contained in Chapter IV provides for rounding up of fraction of marks to whole number. If 59.75 marks are rounded up it comes to 60 marks. Passing marks under the Regulation is required 60 out of 120 marks. Since the petitioner has secured 60 marks despite the fact that he could not appear in examination for 30 marks, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the University shall declare the result of the petitioner as passed, if the assertions of the petitioner are correct. In case he is declared passed, the University shall consider to admit him in the third semester. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. " 9. For ready reference, sub-clause (3) of Rule 30 of Chapter IV of the Academic Regulations of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology is quoted below: "30(3). After the marks obtained by a student at various examinations held in a course during a semester including semester final examination are added up, the fraction of marks if any shall be rounded off to the next higher number in the total and the grade awarded on that basis, e.g. a total of 69.25 marks shall be rounded off to 70 marks and the grade admissible at 70 marks shall be awarded. " 10. Petitioner has also given his marks in first and second semester and according to the petitioner, if his marks are rounded up, he will get the benefit. Marks obtained by the petitioner in first and second semester are quoted below Marks obtained in First Semester: As per University As per Petitioner Engg. Drawing 5.2 = 5.2 Mech. of Solids 5.3 = 5.3 Engg. Math 1st 2.55 = 2.6 Principles of Electrical Engineering 5.525 = 5.6 Work Programme 8 = 8 GPA 4.946 = 5.04 Marks obtained in Second Semester: As per University As per Petitioner Tech. Writing 5.25 = 5.3 Chemistry 5.0 = 5.0 Engg. Drawing 5.2 = 5.2 Mech. of Solids 5.3 = 5.3 Engg. Math 1st 2.55 = 2.6 Principles of Electrical Engineering 5.525 = 5.6 Work Programme 8 = 8 GPA 4.946 = 5.04 Marks obtained in Second Semester: As per University As per Petitioner Tech. Writing 5.25 = 5.3 Chemistry 5.0 = 5.0 Engg. Math IInd Physics 4.30 = 4.3 Workshop Practice 5.275 = 5.3 GPA 4.978 = 4.999333 CGPA As per University 4.962 As per Petitioner 5.01 11. The only ground of objection was that CGPA at the end of first academic year was less than 5 and therefore, the petitioner was finally dropped on account of poor academic performance. The respondents have also filed a counter affidavit, para 7 & 11 of the same are quoted below: "7. That the contents of paragraph 6 of the writ petition are not admitted and are denied. It is stated here that according to the Regulation 44( a)(l) of the Academic Regulations of the University, if any under graduate student fails to obtain the CGPA of 5 out of 1 0, he shall be finally dropped from the University with no right for readmission. The CGPA of the petitioner was 4.946 at the end of 1st academic year, which is less than 5, therefore, the petitioner was finally dropped from the University on account of poor academic performance. 11. That the contents of paragraph No.10 of the writ petition are not admitted and are denied. It is stated here that the petitioner has failed to obtain the CGPA of 5 out of 10 in the 1st academic year, therefore, he has no right to get readmission in the University in view of the Regulation 44(a)(1) of the Academic Regulations of the University. The representation made by the petitioner is misconceived. " 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is not a case where the petitioner should have been dropped. He has made a representation on 14th August, 2003 for enrolment in the third semester of session 2003-2004 with a promise to bring his CGPA above 6 in the third semester. He has also given the undertaking that he may be dropped if he fails to get the CGPA above 6 in the third semester. 13. Regulation 49(a) of the Academic Regulations provides for dropping of the student in the following terms and conditions: "49(a). He has also given the undertaking that he may be dropped if he fails to get the CGPA above 6 in the third semester. 13. Regulation 49(a) of the Academic Regulations provides for dropping of the student in the following terms and conditions: "49(a). Any under graduate student fails to attain CGPA at the end of academic year he shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance with right to petition for readmission. The following categories of first, degree student shall, however, finally dropped with no right to petition for readmission. " I. If any under graduate fails to attain a CGPA of 5. 000 at the end of first academic year. In case a student has been permitted to drop for II semester of his first academic year, his CGPA at the end of first two semesters of his stay in the University will be counted for his purpose. II. If any under graduate student fails to attain a CGPA of 5.000 in his second year onwards. " (b) Any under graduate student failing in the same course thrice shall be dropped from the University. In exceptional circumstances, however, the Vice-Chancellor may permit a fourth chance on the recommendation of the Advisor and Dean concerned. " 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present is not a case of dropping finally as it will amount to playing with the career of a student, who has been admitted in the Degree programme in Bachelor of Technology (Civil Engineering). 15. In the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) Vs State of Karnataka & others reported in 1992 (3) SCC 666, the Apex Court has held as under: "12. Right to life is the compendious expression for all those rights which the courts must enforce because they are basic to the dignified enjoyment of life. It extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue. The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The State Government is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens. " 16. The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The State Government is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens. " 16. The aforesaid case has also been relied upon in the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. & others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2178. Relevant paragraphs of this case are quoted below: "38. Now, coming to Mohini Jain's case [1992(3) SCC 666: 1992 AIR SCW 2100] (supra) it was observed at pages 679-80 (of SCC) : (at p. 2108 of AIR): 'Right to life is the compendious expression for all those rights which the courts must enforce because they are basic to the dignified enjoyment of life. It extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue. The right to education flows directly from right of life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The State Government is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens. 39. Education is enlightenment. It is the one that lends dignity to a man as was rightly observed by Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) in University of Delhi Vs Ram Nath, (1964) 2 SCR 703 at p. 710 (AIR 1963 SC 1873 at p. 1875, para 6) : 'Education seeks to build up the personality of the pupil by assisting his physical, intellectual, moral and emotional development. 40. If life is so interpreted as to bring within it right to education, it has to be interpreted in the light of directive principles. This Court has uniformly taken the view that harmonious interpretation of the fundamental rights vis- a -vis the directive principles must be adopted. " 17. The education, therefore, lends dignity to a man and Article 21 of the Constitution of India gives a right to education to an individual and the State Government is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens. 18. " 17. The education, therefore, lends dignity to a man and Article 21 of the Constitution of India gives a right to education to an individual and the State Government is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens. 18. Due to some inaction on the part of the educational authorities to train a student so as to complete the level of requirements of the University Rules, a student should not suffer. Steps should be taken to find out the lapse on the part of educational authorities and proper' guidelines should be given in order to avoid repeated mistakes in the coming Semester instead of completely debarring a student to reform himself. 19. The educational authorities, while admitting a student should also base itself on the reformative theory, instead of playing with the career of a student on account of some lapses on either part. Regulations of the University authorities are the guidelines, but the oral guideline, which a student should receive should also be a consideration, which plays an important role in the career building of a student. If a student does not come to the estimation of the University authorities, once he is admitted to a particular course, it becomes the duty of the University authorities to look to the shortcomings as well. If the University authorities will proceed on this theory, I am sure that the students will devote themselves in the career building rather than will prefer to be ousted from the courses. 20. With these guidelines, I am sure that the University authorities will be liberal in coaching the students so that they may cover up in the next Semester. 21. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the matter is sent back to the Vice Chancellor to take a decision in this regard for admitting the student in the third semester course and necessary orders in this regard may be passed within a period of 10 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order so that further education of the petitioner may not suffer. 22. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.