Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 849 (CAL)

ATRAIYEE CHOWDHURY v. PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY

2017-11-06

SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition assailing the impugned order dated 30.8.2017 issued by the Controller of Examination, Presidency University, thereby rejecting the petitioner’s prayer to appear as casual student in the University for 2017-18 on the following grounds :- “After careful consideration of your application for casual studentship in the B.A. course of this university it appears from consultation of your academic records that you have failed to clear the papers PHIL 0102 on four occasions in the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. 2. As per the University Examination Regulations, no student can obtain a degree if a student fails to clear a semester even after exhausting four chances. 3. Affording you yet another chance is therefore not provided in the Examination regulation of Presidency University, which you are governed by and accepted to be bound by at the time of admission to your course. 4. Your application for casual enrolment is therefore beyond the provisions of the Examination regulations of the University. 5. Furthermore your continuance as a casual student in the University does not merit a favourable consideration in light of the academic standards so far displayed by you. 6. Therefore your enrolment as casual student will thus only be ornamental and rather detrimental to your interest since you cannot be conferred with the Degree of this University. Hence I am directed to state that your application is considered and rejected.” 7. Mr. Arnab Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that as per Presidency University Regulation 20 there is no provision for four consecutive years the candidate has to appear in any course/paper. Mr. Chakraborty in support of his contention relies on Regulation 20 of the Presidency University Regulation, which is quoted below :- “20. (i) No student shall be permitted to sit for any Bachelor’s Degree Examination (including Honours and Extra-departmental subjects) or Master’s Degree Examination after the lapse of the period of attendance as specified below: Bachelor’s Degree Examination (including Honours and Extra-departmental subjects) for any course/paper – Six years after admission to the first semester. Master’s Degree Examination for any course/paper – Four years after admission to the first semester. (ii) No student shall be permitted to sit for any course/paper for examination forthe Bachelor’s Degree (including Honours and Extra-departmental subjects) or Master’s Degree more than four times.” 8. Mr. Master’s Degree Examination for any course/paper – Four years after admission to the first semester. (ii) No student shall be permitted to sit for any course/paper for examination forthe Bachelor’s Degree (including Honours and Extra-departmental subjects) or Master’s Degree more than four times.” 8. Mr. Chakraborty further emphasizes that since there is no whisper in the Regulation 20 regarding four consecutive years, a candidate has to appear. Therefore since the petitioner in respect of first semester paper Phil. 1020 failed for three years, that is to say, 2013, 2014 and 2015. Therefore as per Regulation 20 the petitioner is entitled to avail last chance for four times to appear. Unfortunately in the present case petitioner was denied to avail the same. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that admittedly in the year 2016 the petitioner failed to apply for four chance. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to get one chance under the Regulation 20 of the said University Regulation. Be that as it may, Mr. Chakraborty further emphasizes that the petitioner is also entitled to get admission as casual student. Unfortunately, by the impugned order that has also been denied by the Authority on the ground that petitioner failed to appear on four occasions in respect of paper Phil. 1020 for four years, that is to say, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 without considering the fact that for 2016 petitioner never applied due to her illness. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner during 2016 suffered from dengue which has been pleaded in paragraph 19 of the writ petition. In support of his pleading in paragraph 19 today Mr. Chakraborty submitted a supplementary affidavit thereby annexing medical documents copy of which has already been served upon Mr. Sengupta, learned Counsel appearing for the University. 9. However, before parting with his argument Mr. Chakraborty submits that petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case to be allowed by the Hon’ble Court for appearing in the session 2017-18. 10. Per contra, Mr. Sengupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Presidency University submits that the petitioner cannot take the advantage of Regulation 20 of the said Regulation. Mr. Sengupta further submits that the petitioner was supposed to appear in the year 2016 to complete his four times or chance. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to avail that opportunity. Therefore, Mr. 10. Per contra, Mr. Sengupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Presidency University submits that the petitioner cannot take the advantage of Regulation 20 of the said Regulation. Mr. Sengupta further submits that the petitioner was supposed to appear in the year 2016 to complete his four times or chance. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to avail that opportunity. Therefore, Mr. Sengupta submits since the petitioner missed the bus thereby availing the opportunity by filing the writ petition, the petitioner cannot claim any concession from this Hon’ble Court. Mr. Sengupta further submits if any interim relief is granted in favour of the petitioner that will open the floodgate for the candidates who are similarly situated like the petitioner. Mr. Sengupta further submits in every organization and institution, that too in an educational institution, it is expected that candidates will follow the Rules and Regulations as made for the said Institution or organization or the University because each and every institution and organization as well as the University is dealing with the public, here the students. Therefore, if any indulgence is given by the court of law that will welcome the other candidates to take the advantage of that. Mr. Sengupta further emphasizes his argument on law point that this Regulation 20 never suggested that the candidate himself/herself has to physically fill up the form and deposit the fees. Just to maintain the fairness as well as transparency in respect of admission and also in respect of holding examination the University has taken decision that everything shall be made through online. Therefore the petitioner is not supposed to fill up this application physically; anyone of his family could have done so on behalf of the petitioner through online. But unfortunately it is not done either by the family members of the petitioner or any well-wishers or good friend of the petitioner. Mr. Sengupta also takes the point of delay in approaching this Hon’ble Court. He further submits that the petitioner failed to fill up this application within time in the year 2016 for fourth/last chance. But the present writ petition was filed only on 25.10.17, when admittedly the rejection order was passed by the Authority on 30.8.17 to allow her to appear as a casual student in the University. Mr. He further submits that the petitioner failed to fill up this application within time in the year 2016 for fourth/last chance. But the present writ petition was filed only on 25.10.17, when admittedly the rejection order was passed by the Authority on 30.8.17 to allow her to appear as a casual student in the University. Mr. Sengupta further explained that delay in approaching the Court cannot be overlooked or ignored by this Hon’ble Court since admittedly everything could have been done by the petitioner through online. Therefore, Mr. Sengupta submits the petitioner cannot take the advantage of four times appearance under Regulation 20 of the said University Regulation. Therefore, Mr. Sengupta submits that the petitioner cannot get any relief thereby questioning the impugned order dated 30.8.2017 while the petitioner’s prayer for appearing as casual student for the year 2017-18 has been rejected long back by the University. Mr. Sengupta further submits in the impugned order sufficient reasons have been assigned why the petitioner has not been allowed to appear as a casual student for the year 2017-18. Therefore, in conclusion Mr. Sengupta submits there is no ambiguity or illegality in the impugned order dated 30.8.2017 which deserves interference by this Hon’ble Court. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates and after perusing the records as well as the impugned order and the Regulations, in my considered view the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case to get some interim relief. The matter cannot be decided without exchange of affidavits. Therefore, respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks. Reply, if any, be filed within three weeks. 12. Let the matter appear in the monthly list of January, 2018 under the heading “For Hearing”. Liberty to mention. 13. Needless to mention, the impugned order shall abide by the result of the writ petition. In the event the petitioner succeeds then the University will allow the petitioner to appear for the year 2018.