Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 146 (DEL)

Amit Rahi v. Jawahar Lal Nehru University

2013-01-17

D.MURUGESAN, RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 13.08.2012 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.7018/2011 preferred by the appellant. The counsel for the respondent University appeared on advance notice and with consent of the counsels, the appeal was heard finally at the admission stage and judgment reserved. 2. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was preferred impugning the denial by the respondent University to the petitioner of direct admission to Ph.D (Biotechnology) programme commencing from the year 2011 on the ground of the appellant not meeting the eligibility condition therefor. 3. The eligibility condition which according to the respondent University, the appellant did not meet was of having obtained “Masters Degree with FGPA of 6.00 in the 10 point scale / comparable standard or equivalent percentage.” According to the appellant, he meets the said eligibility condition. 4. The appellant has completed his Masters (M.Sc. in Biotechnology) also from the respondent University with an CGPA score of 5.59. It is his case that the CGPA secured by him of 5.59 is on a 9 point scale and if the same is to be equated on a 10 point scale, he meets the eligibility condition of FGPA of 6. He, in this regard relies on the prospectus of the respondent University for the year 2011-12, which under the heading “School of Life Sciences” and under the Sub-Heading “M.Sc. (Life Sciences)” inter alia provides that the final evaluation of the students admitted to the said course “for the grades is on a 9 point scale CGPA”. According to the appellant the comparable standard or equivalent percentage of CGPA of 5.59 on a 9 point scale is above the requirement of 6 on the 10 point scale. Further reliance in this regard is placed on the copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Academic Council of the respondent University obtained through the medium of Right to Information Act, 2005, containing the Resolution “to approve the Grade “B? in the 10 point scale as equivalent to 55% in the percentage system.” Yet further reliance is placed on the “Ordinance Relating to Award of M.A./M.Sc./B.A. (H) and B.A. (P) Degrees’ wherein “grade” is defined as “meaning a letter grade assigned to a student on the basis of evaluation of a course on the ten point scale”. in the 10 point scale as equivalent to 55% in the percentage system.” Yet further reliance is placed on the “Ordinance Relating to Award of M.A./M.Sc./B.A. (H) and B.A. (P) Degrees’ wherein “grade” is defined as “meaning a letter grade assigned to a student on the basis of evaluation of a course on the ten point scale”. It is the contention of the appellant that 5.59 out of maximum of 9 points is equivalent to 6.25 on a 10 point scale or 62%. It is yet further contended that other Universities follow the grading system on a scale of 1 to 10 points instead of 0 to 9 point as followed by the respondent University and thus while the students evaluated on a 10 points scale secured a minimum of 1 mark as against the students evaluated on a 0 to 9 point scale who can secure a minimum of 0 marks. It is contended that 0 cannot be equated to 1. Reliance is placed on State of Kerala Vs. Kumari T.P. Roshana ( AIR 1979 SC 765 ) for the need for uniformity of standards. 5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition from which this appeal arises with reference to the Ordinance of the respondent University, providing that a student shall be graded on a 10 point scale i.e. from 0 to 9 and providing for the Grade A+ as equivalent to grade point of 9, Grade A as equivalent to grade point of 8, Grade A- as equivalent to grade point of 7, Grade B+ as equal to grade point of 6, Grade B as equivalent to grade point of 5, Grade B- as equivalent to grade point of 4, Grade C+ as equivalent to grade point of 3, Grade C as equivalent to grade point of 2, Grade C- as equivalent to grade point of 1 and Grade F as equivalent to grade point of 0. It was held that the appellant cannot derive any advantage from the fact that the grading had been done out of 9 point as Grade 1 to 10 is equivalent to Grade 0 to 9 and thus it cannot be said that 5.0 on a scale of 9 is equivalent to 60 or 6 points out of 10. The appellant was thus held to be not meeting the eligibility criteria. 6. The appellant was thus held to be not meeting the eligibility criteria. 6. We may reiterate that the Masters Degree of the marks wherein the appellant is seeking equalization is also from the same University in which the appellant is seeking admission in the Ph.D programme. The academic authorities of the respondent University are the best judge to decide whether the CGPA of 5.59 secured by the appellant is equivalent to the FGPA of 6 on a 10 point scale and the scope of the Court interfering with such decisions on academic matters of the academic experts of the University is limited. The case of the appellant is not of victimization or of the respondent University wanting to admit another for oblique motives. The only ground of challenge is, the decision of the University being arbitrary and whimsical. However, the concerned Authorities of the University, not only while making the selection but even on challenge being made by the appellant in the writ petition and in this appeal have taken a consistent stand that the equalization as sought to be done by the appellant is not valid. The Registrar of the respondent University in the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition has taken a categorical stand that Clause 8.4 of Academic Ordinance 15 of the respondent University provides that “the students shall be graded in each course on a 10 point scale”. It is the contention of the University that 0 to 9 is also a 10 point scale. 7. We are unable to hold the decision of the respondent University, of the appellant being not eligible for admission, to be so arbitrary or whimsical, so as to invite interference by this Court. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.