Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 16 (JK)

Nasir Ahmad Rather v. NIIT

2015-02-06

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Ali Mohd. Magrey, J.:- 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issue of a Mandamus commanding the respondents to officially declare the result of the petitioner of the M. Tech course in Water Resources Engineering in terms of judgment dated 30.10.2012 passed in OWP No. 1069/2009 and, in the event the petitioner has secured first position in the said course, to award him the requisite Degree as also Gold Medal. Briefly put, the facts are that the petitioner was granted admission to M. Tech course in Water Resources Engineering in NIIT, Srinagar, pursuant to Court order. On completion of the course, the respondents produced the result of the petitioner in sealed cover before the Court. The sealed cover was opened by the Court on 30.10.2012. Consequent thereto, the writ petition was disposed of and the admission of the petitioner for the said course was regularised. The respondents were directed to officially declare the result of the petitioner within two weeks. 2. The present writ petition, filed by the petitioner on 12.11.2012, raises a two-fold grievance: first, that the respondents had scheduled the annual Convocation on 16.11.2012 for award of Degrees and Gold Medals, but since the respondents had not officially declared his result, his name had not been included in the list of the candidates to whom Degrees were likely to be given out at Convocation; second, that, according to his information, he had secured first position and, therefore, was entitled to receive Gold Medal at the aforesaid Convocation, but since his result had not been officially declared, he was being deprived of the said benefit. 3. The official respondents in their response have stated that in compliance of the judgment dated 30.10.2012 passed in OWP No. 1069/2009, the results of the petitioner were declared within the time stipulated therein, i.e., on 22.11.2012; whereas the convocation was held on 16.11.2012. As regards the award of Gold Medal, it is averred that the Senate of the Institute in its meeting held on 15.10.2012 passed Resolution No. 11/21 to the following effect: "Award of Gold Medals to the topper of each programme at M. Tech of the Institute for the pass out students of the year 2012 only". As regards the award of Gold Medal, it is averred that the Senate of the Institute in its meeting held on 15.10.2012 passed Resolution No. 11/21 to the following effect: "Award of Gold Medals to the topper of each programme at M. Tech of the Institute for the pass out students of the year 2012 only". The result of the different semester examinations of the petitioner detailed in paragraph 4 of the para-wise reply filed by the respondents indicates that the petitioner had passed the four semesters of the course with the following SGPA: 1st Semester : 6.25 (1st attempt) 2nd Semester : Reappear in OCP 2nd Semester : 6.19 (2nd attempt) 3rd Semester : 7.44 (1st attempt) 4th Semester : 7.101 (1st attempt) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 5. The grievance of the petitioner as to the declaration of his results does not survive, since the results are stated to have already been declared on 22.11.2012. The respondents are, therefore, bound to issue the Degree Certificate in his favour. 6. As regards the award of Gold Medal, it, is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was a topper in the M. Tech Programme of Water Resources Engineering. The Resolution No. 11/21 quoted by the respondents in their reply clearly mentions that from amongst the pass out students of the year 2012, Gold Medals were to be awarded only to the toppers of each of the programme at M. Tech of the Institute. Once the petitioner had stood as a topper in his programme, he cannot be denied the award and discriminated against. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents produced and relied upon the Resolution No. 11/12 wherein it is mentioned as under: "Regarding awards and certificates the proposal is approved subject to following conditions: 1. The students do not have any back log/supplementary during the course. 2. The Gold Medalist must have a minimum CGPA of 8.5. The number of students must be more than one." Relying on the aforesaid Resolution of the Senate, it was argued that since the petitioner had passed the 2nd Semester in 2nd attempt and he did not have the CGPA of 8.5, he was not entitled to award of Gold Medal. 8. The number of students must be more than one." Relying on the aforesaid Resolution of the Senate, it was argued that since the petitioner had passed the 2nd Semester in 2nd attempt and he did not have the CGPA of 8.5, he was not entitled to award of Gold Medal. 8. At first sight, the argument appears to be appealing, but on a minute perusal of the document, it is revealed that the said Resolution was passed in regard to the proposal of Convocation 2013. The Resolution which was applicable for the Convocation 2012, as quoted in the reply filed by the respondents, did not lay down any such condition(s). In any case, the 2013 Resolution cannot have a retrospective application. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has also produced the photocopy of what appears to be a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Braham Kumar Khajuria v. University of Jammu, OWP No. 908/1995 reported in 2001 KLJ 335 : JKJ Soft JKJ/19442. However the photocopy neither bears the date of decision, nor the complete citation. Notwithstanding that, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner's M. Tech course was governed by Regulation 30 of the Statute which regulated the Master's Degree Programme of the Jammu University, or that any such condition, as was contained in Regulation 30 of the Statutes of Jammu University, was applicable in the respondent-Institute and the course in question. The learned counsel seems to be oblivious of the fact that NIIT is not governed by the Statutes of the University of Jammu. 10. It thus appears to be clear case of discrimination. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents appear to have taken the act of the petitioner to have approached the Court for redressal of his grievances not in a good taste; otherwise once the result of the petitioner had been produced before the Court in sealed cover and the Court had opened it on 30.10.2012 after which the writ petition was disposed of on the very same day, directing the respondents to officially declare the petitioner's result, there was no reason why it should have taken them 22 days to officially declare the results when the Convocation was scheduled to be held on 16.11.2012. The delay in declaration of the petitioner's result seems to have been a ploy on the part of the respondents devised to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right. It should be borne in mind that award of Gold Medal is not a mere formality; it represents the recognition by an institute of the fact of one having been adjudged as the outstanding pass out which in turn satiate the long industrious yearning of a student. Of course, it is not only unethical, but also antithesis to the philosophy of teaching, to afford to inculcate and impart a sense in a pass out, about to set his foot in the realm of service to society, that merit can be ignored by any machination. 11. The petition is, accordingly, partly allowed. The respondents are commanded to issue the Degree Certificate, if not already issued, and he Gold Medal to the petitioner earned by him by reason of him having undergone M. Tech course in Water Resources Engineering and having topped the Results in 2012, in terms of the Senate Resolution passed for 2012 Annual Convocation. The needful shall be done within three months from today. 12. No order as to costs.