Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 262 (GUJ)

Aditi Mangalbhai Patel v. Gujarat Univeristy

2009-04-09

AKIL KURESHI, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2009
Judgment Akil Kureshi, J.—In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 7.1(B) of the rules governing the admission to Post-graduate Dental Courses at the affiliated Dental Colleges/Institutions from 7.8.2007 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the said Rules”). The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to prepare a fresh merit list as per the contentions raised in the petition. 2. The said Rules provide for the manner in which admissions to Post-graduate courses in the Gujarat University are to be governed. Rule 7 in particular pertains to determination of merit order. Rule 7.1(A) provides for an entrance examination to be conducted by the University. Rule 7.1(B) provides for weightage to be given to the under-graduate examination of the concerned student. Rule 7.1(B) reads as follows: “7.1(B) Undergraduate Examination. i. Percentage upto 2 decimals of marks obtained by the candidate at Final BDS Examination (without internal marks). ii. Percentage upto 2 decimals of marks obtained by the candidate at Third BDS Examination (without internal marks.) iii. Percentage upto 2 decimals of marks obtained by the candidate at Second BDS Examination (without internal marks). iv. Percentage upto 2 decimals of marks obtained by the candidate at First BDS Examination (without internal marks). v. The Percentage in above calculation should be modified by deduction of 1.5 for each unsuccessful trial in the concerned examination. “Unsuccessful trial”includes the number of terms he has lost after he has become due, irrespective of his appearance, provided that the Non-appearance is not as a result of reasons beyond his control. Note.—First trial is deemed to take place when he is due to appear for the examination, irrespective of his actual appearance, provided that non-appearance is not a result of reasons beyond his control. Similarly 2nd, 3rd, etc. trial relating to subsequent examinations. (vi) Total of (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) as modified by (v) shall be considered as undergraduate examination marks.” Rule 7.2(a) provides that total of marks obtained in entrance examination and under graduate examination will be considered for merit. 3. According to the said Rules, the University prepares merit list of eligible candidates by combining the performance of a student in the entrance test as well as in the under-graduate examination as provided under the said Rules. It is an undisputed position that entrance examination consists of 400 marks. 3. According to the said Rules, the University prepares merit list of eligible candidates by combining the performance of a student in the entrance test as well as in the under-graduate examination as provided under the said Rules. It is an undisputed position that entrance examination consists of 400 marks. As per Rule 7.1(B), total weightage of 400 marks is assigned to performance of the student in the undergraduate examination also. 4. Primarily, it is the contention of the petitioner that the said Rule is unjust and arbitrary. Detailed averments and examples have been set forth in the petition to contend that computation of the merit marks as per Rules 7.1(A) and 7.1(B) would lead to anomalous results. 5. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Advocate Shri Sunit Shah appearing with Mr. Dipen Desai contended that the petitioner though consistently fared better than respondent No. 3 in all four undergraduate examinations, in the merit list prepared by the University, respondent No. 3 has got more merit marks than the petitioner. It was contended that Rule 7.1(B) in so far as the same assigns equal weightage to each year’s performance at the undergraduate level is unjust and unfair since the students have to study different number of subjects in different years. It was pointed out that in the first and second years, a student would study three subjects and grand total of marks in the examination would be 600 marks each. In the third year, the student would be studying four subjects with grand total of 800 marks and in the 4th year, the student would have to undertake 7 subjects with grand total of 1400 marks. It was contended that giving equal weightage to each year of undergraduate studies was, therefore, not just and the University should have maintained different weightage for different year as per the grand total of marks in that particular year. 6. Appearing for the University on advance copy, learned Senior Advocate Shri S.N. Shelat with Ms. V.D. Nanavati opposed the petition and submitted that the rules have been in existence since long time and the same should not be upset at this distant point of time. 6. Appearing for the University on advance copy, learned Senior Advocate Shri S.N. Shelat with Ms. V.D. Nanavati opposed the petition and submitted that the rules have been in existence since long time and the same should not be upset at this distant point of time. He contended that validity of the rules has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Karamsad Medical Association vs. State of Gujarat, 2000 (2) GLR 1648 and the Apex Court in the case of Magan Mehrotra vs. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 186. He further contended that even otherwise, the methodology adopted by the University was neither irrational nor arbitrary. This Court, therefore, would not interfere with such policy decision of the expert body in the field of education. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, we find that the University has framed rules for governing admission to Post-graduate Dental Courses which have statutory force. The Rules envisage equal weightage of 400 marks for entrance examination as well as for performance of the student at the under-graduation level. Apparently, the University finds that the performance of the student at the entrance examination is of considerable significance. However, to make the consideration more broad based, performance of the student at the under-graduation is also to be reckoned. While doing so, each year of under-graduation study is treated equally and the marks obtained by the student concerned is to be projected as percentage of marks i.e. out of 100 in a given year. Thus each year of undergraduate studies, the student’s performance is projected over 100 marks, totaling to 400 of grand total for undergraduate performance. 8. We do not find that the Rules are either irrational or arbitrary. What should be the criteria for preparation of merit list for admission in an educational course, particularly at the post-graduate level should be best left for the expert bodies to decide. Particularly when no illegality or irrationality has been demonstrated before us in the set of rules adopted by the University, no interference will be warranted. What should be the criteria for preparation of merit list for admission in an educational course, particularly at the post-graduate level should be best left for the expert bodies to decide. Particularly when no illegality or irrationality has been demonstrated before us in the set of rules adopted by the University, no interference will be warranted. Quite apart from the fact that the Rules have been in existence since long, as stated by the learned counsel, and in different context, validity of the Rules had come up for consideration before this Court as well as before the Apex Court, we independently find that the Rule in question which is under challenge in the present petition cannot be said to be arbitrary or unlawful. 9. Though it is true that the petitioner had consistently fared better than respondent No. 3 in the undergraduate examination, it cannot be forgotten that respondent No. 3 secured considerably more marks in the entrance examination than the petitioner. This is precisely the reason for him getting more merit marks than the petitioner when the entrance examination marks as well as marks of the undergraduate examinations are combined as per the Rules. There is no warrant to direct the University to give different weightage for different years of undergraduate studies. It may be that in different years, the students may be undertaking studies of different number of subjects and therefore grand total of marks for different years may be different. However, if the University finds that each year has equal importance and even projection of marks for each year is therefore to be made while preparing the merit list, we do not find that such a decision of the expert body can be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 10. In the case of National Board of Examinations vs. G. Anand Ramamurthy, (2006) 5 SCC 515 , the Apex Court was pleased to hold that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the policy matter of academic nature. In the case of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Kamini, (2007) 5 SCC 519 , the Apex Court observed that the Court ordinarily would not interfere with the opinion of the expert committee as regards qualification and eligibility of candidates. It was observed that in the field of education, the Court of law cannot act as an expert. In the case of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Kamini, (2007) 5 SCC 519 , the Apex Court observed that the Court ordinarily would not interfere with the opinion of the expert committee as regards qualification and eligibility of candidates. It was observed that in the field of education, the Court of law cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a student possesses requisite qualifications should better be left to educational institutions particularly when such decision is supported by an expert committee. 11. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby rejected.