Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 72 (ALL)

STUTI VERMA v. C. C. S. UNIVERSITY MEERUT

2011-01-12

S.U.KHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Smt. M.R. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 56187 of 2009 (at Serial No. 5). No one appeared on behalf of petitioners in the said writ petition and Smt. M.R. Chauhan, learned counsel, categorically stated that she was not appearing for the petitioners in the said writ petition. 2. The petitioners of these nine writ petitions (34 in total) are students of Bachelor of Dental Science (BDS) course which they are pursuing from four dental colleges affiliated to Chaudhery Charan Singh University, Meerut, respondent No. 1 in all the writ petitions. The colleges are run by Maharaji Educational Trust, Santosh Nagar, Ghaziabad (respondent No. 2 in the I and II writ petitions), Dayanand Pushpadevi Charitable Trust, Ghaziabad (respondent No. 2 in the III, IV & VII writ petitions), Hindustan Institute of Dental Science, Greater NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar (respondent No. 4 in the V writ petition) and Kunj Behari Lal Charitable Trust Indraprasth Dental College and Hospital, Shahibabad, District Ghaziabad (respondent No. 2 in the VI, VIII and IX writ petitions). All these colleges are affiliated to respondent No. 1 University. Apart from these, 7 or 8 other dental colleges are also affiliated to the same University. 3. All the petitioners took admission in or about August, 2006. The BDS course is of four years. First year examination was held in December, 2007 and second year examination was held in December, 2008. 4. All the petitioners were promoted/ carried over to next year even if they had failed in more than one paper of the previous year. This was done in spite of clear prohibition in that regard by Regulations of 1983 & 2007. The Regulations have been framed by Dental Council of India (D.C.I.). The Regulations of 1983 and of 2007 have been quoted in a letter sent by D.C.I. on 8.6.2009 to Secretary/ Registrar, Chaudhery Charan Singh University, Meerut, which is Annexure CA-IV to the counter-affidavit filed by the University in the first writ petition. Both the Regulations are quoted below : “.......... DCI’s BDS Course Regulations 1983 (3) Any candidate who fails in one subject in an examination is permitted to go to the next higher class and appear for the subject and complete it successfully before he can appear for the next higher examination. Both the Regulations are quoted below : “.......... DCI’s BDS Course Regulations 1983 (3) Any candidate who fails in one subject in an examination is permitted to go to the next higher class and appear for the subject and complete it successfully before he can appear for the next higher examination. If Semester system is followed, the candidate can carry one subject from one semester to the next semester only, and appear for both semester examinations simultaneously.” 2. DCI Revised BDS Course Regulations 2007: SCHEME OF EXAMINATION The scheme of examination for B.D.S. Course shall be divided into 1st BDS examination at the end of the first academic year, 2nd BDS Examination at the end of second year, 3rd BDS Examination at the end of third, 4th BDS Examination at the end of fourth year and final BDS at the end of 5th year. 240 days minimum teaching in each academic year is mandatory. The examination shall be open to a candidate who satisfies the requirements of attendance, progress and other rules laid down by the University. (1) Universities shall organize admission timings and admission process in such a way that teaching starts from 1st day of August in each academic year.” Any student, who does not clear the first BDS University Examination in all subjects within 3 years from the date of admission, shall be discharged from the Course. “Any candidate who fails in one subject in an examination is permitted to go to the next higher class and appear for the subject and complete it successfully before he is permitted to appear for the next higher examination...............” (Relevant extracts enclosed) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in spite of Regulations of 1983, the colleges were invariably promoting/ carrying over even those students who had failed in more than one subject to the next year of the course and that petitioners were not aware of the Regulations of 1983 or of 2007 according to which this facility could be extended only to those students who failed only in one subject but not those who failed in more than one subject. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent University has vehemently argued that the practice of promoting/ carrying over those students who had failed in more than one subject was wrong even prior to 2007. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent University has vehemently argued that the practice of promoting/ carrying over those students who had failed in more than one subject was wrong even prior to 2007. However on 10.3.2008, the University held a meeting of all the dental colleges affiliated to it and categorically told them that practice of promoting/ carrying over to the next year of those students who had failed in more than one subject was illegal and should be stopped. Resolution of the meeting held on 10.3.2008 is Annexure CA-I to the counter-affidavit filed in the first writ petition. It is also stated in Para-9 of the said counter-affidavit that copy of the said resolution was communicated to all the colleges affiliated to the University. In para-10 of the said counter-affidavit it has been stated that Dental Council of India in its general body meeting held in April, 2008 severally censured the University for permitting the colleges to illegally promote/ carry over those students who had failed in more than one subject. Agenda of the meeting of D.C.I. held in April, 2008 is annexed as Annexure CA-III to the counter-affidavit filed in the first writ petition. Item No. 7(15) of the Agenda is quoted below: “It has come to the notice of the Council that Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut is not following the DCI Regulations 2007. Therefore, the Executive Committee recommends to the Central Government and the UGC not to recognize the degree awarded by the Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut. The matter be placed before the General Body of the DCI for broader discussion.” 7. D.C.I. also wrote a letter to the Secretary/ Registrar Chaudhery Charan Singh University, Meerut, copy of which is Annexure CA-IV to the counter-affidavit filed in the first writ petition. 8. The stand of the petitioners that they were not aware of the Regulations cannot be accepted. Violation of the said Regulations ultimately benefitted the students hence it is quite clear that the students were also involved therein. If an illegal act benefits someone, then he cannot plead that he was not aware of the correct Rule or not part of the said action. The respondent University has also been negligent in permitting the practice to continue, however the real violators are the colleges. Accordingly, students as well as the colleges, both should share the consequences. 9. If an illegal act benefits someone, then he cannot plead that he was not aware of the correct Rule or not part of the said action. The respondent University has also been negligent in permitting the practice to continue, however the real violators are the colleges. Accordingly, students as well as the colleges, both should share the consequences. 9. The plea of the petitioners that they were misguided/ misled by the old practice does not carry much force as in the year 2007 Relevant Regulation had again been framed and in the year 2008 stern direction had been issued by the University to management of each college. Moreover learned counsel for respondent University has stated that 12 or 13 dental colleges are affiliated with the University and apart from the four colleges, who are respondent No. 2 in these writ petitions, all other colleges since 2008 are strictly following the Regulations and are not permitting any student who has failed in more than one subject to be promoted to the next year. 10. A wrong order cannot be a precedent. No one can insist on continuance of wrong practice. 11. Academic excellence (or even standard) cannot be maintained if a student is promoted to higher class/ next year of a course even though he may have failed in two or more papers/ subjects, out of total four papers/ subjects. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent University that almost all the petitioners were given admission under management quota appears to be correct however no final opinion in this regard is being/ can be expressed for want of exact pleading and evidence. 12. Not promoting a student to the next year of the course unless he has passed all the papers/ subjects is the rule. Promoting a student who has failed in some subject(s)/ paper(s) is an exception which need to be provided specifically. Accordingly, the allegation made by the petitioners that they were not aware of the relevant Regulation, even if accepted, is of no consequence as in that contingency even the promotion of such student who failed only in one paper/ subject cannot be justified. Moreover everyone, even illiterates, are supposed to know the law. A student of higher technical course cannot, therefore, be heard to say that he does not know the regulations governing the conduct of the course including examination and promotion. 13. Moreover everyone, even illiterates, are supposed to know the law. A student of higher technical course cannot, therefore, be heard to say that he does not know the regulations governing the conduct of the course including examination and promotion. 13. For the Examination held in December, 2009, the petitioners were permitted to appear through interim order dated 7.12.2009 passed in these writ petitions (the said order runs into 7 pages and the entire controversy involved in the writ petitions has been noticed therein). 14. Accordingly, it is directed that the result of the petitioners who appeared in the Examination held in December, 2009 under interim order dated 7.12.2009 shall be declared and the petitioners shall also be permitted to appear in the Examination which is to be held after 15.1.2010 (as stated by learned counsel of the University on the date on which judgment was reserved, i.e. 7.12.2010 and recorded in the order sheet of the said date). The petitioners shall also be permitted to appear in the back papers even if in the previous year they had failed in more than one subject, however the result of the petitioners shall not be declared alongwith the result of the other students but it shall be declared after six months of declaration of the result of other students. 15. It is further directed that for next two academic sessions the four colleges in question shall be permitted to fill up their management quota seats only to the extent of 50% and remaining 50% seats must be filled up by other candidates qualifying the combined entrance test on merit. 16. Chaudhery Charan Singh University, Meerut in future shall not permit any dental college affiliated to it to promote or carry over any student to the next year in case he has failed in more than one subject. If any violation is done, the Central Government and the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) shall immediately take steps to de-recognise the degree of B.D.S. course awarded by this University. 17. All the writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 56187 of 2009 are disposed of accordingly with the above directions. However, as no one has appeared for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 56187 of 2009 (at Serial No. 5), the same is dismissed in default. 18. 17. All the writ petitions except Writ Petition No. 56187 of 2009 are disposed of accordingly with the above directions. However, as no one has appeared for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 56187 of 2009 (at Serial No. 5), the same is dismissed in default. 18. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Heads of University Grants Commission, Dental Council of India and Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development promptly. 19. Certified copy of this judgment may be supplied to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges promptly. —————