Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6822 of 2000
PETITIONER:
THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GAGANDEEP SHARMA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/09/2001
BENCH:
S.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal & Ashok Bhan
JUDGMENT:
Y.K.SABHARWAL, J.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this appeal were admitted to
four year Bachelor of Engineering course in Thapar Institute
of Engineering and Technology in the academic year 1997-98.
The said Institute and its Director are appellants before
us. Their challenge is to the judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned
judgment, reversing the judgment of the learned Single
Judge, has declared that the respondents should be deemed to
have passed the first year of their respective course.
Accordingly, the appellants were directed to take immediate
steps for allowing the respondents to prosecute their
studies in the second year.
During the academic year 1997-98, Clause 17(a) of
Schedule I of Academic Regulations governing the appellant-
Institute required a student of the first year to repeat the
examination if he fails to secure specified credits and/or
specified grade and on inability to secure specified grade
after repeating, to leave the Institution. The relevant
part of Clause 17(a) at the material time in the academic
year 1997-98 was as follows :
"17(a) A student will be required to repeat
first year if (i) he fails to earn 40% of
the credits offered in the approved scheme
of courses for the first year; and/or (ii)
he secures a CGPA of less than 4.00 at the
end of first year. However, while repeating
first year he will be exempted from
repeating the courses in which the grade
earned is A, B or C in the earlier attempt.
If the student, after repeating first year
under 17(a) is unable to secure a CGPA of
4.5, he will be required to leave the
Institute."
The level of performance in the course on a 10 point
scale, providing for grade point for purposes of computing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
the Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) and Cumulative
Grade Point Average (CGPA) is as follows :
"Letter Grade Performance Grade Point
Average
A Excellent 10
B Good 8
C Fair 6
D Poor 4
E Fail 2"
By Notification dated 17/20th July, 1998, 14 students
of B.E. of 1997 batch, including respondents, who had
failed to secure the minimum academic requirement in terms
of Clause 17(a) were informed that they are required to
repeat first year during the session 1998-99.
Further, the Institute by letter dated 24th February,
1999 advised the respondents to put in maximum efforts and
make up deficiency in the grades so as to continue on the
rolls of the Institute drawing their attention to the fact
that if they failed to meet the requirements as provided in
Clause 17, they will be required to leave the Institution.
They were also advised to meet the Dean of Student
Affairs/Dean Academic Affairs/Student counselor and seek
guidance in planning the studies.
The respondents, in the academic year 1998-99 repeated
and again appeared for the first semester in the course in
which they had secured either D or E grade since the
Regulations exempted students from repeating the course in
which they had secured either A or B or C grade.
Respondent No.1 repeated 11 papers and was exempted for
appearing in one paper. Respondent No.2 repeated 10 papers
and was exempted from appearing in 2 papers having secured
B and C grade in those papers.
In their repeated examination, it is not disputed, the
respondents secured CGPA below 4.5. Thus, by Notification
dated 13th July, 1999, noticing that the respondents have
failed to attain the requisite CGPA and were required to
leave the Institute, their names were struck off from the
rolls of the Institute.
The respondents preferred a writ petition in the High
Court seeking quashing of Notification dated 13th July,
1999 and striking of their names from the rolls of the
Institute and also a direction for implementation of the
amended Clause 17 in their case as well and allowing them
to advance to second year of B.E. course. The writ
petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. In
appeal, however, reversing that judgment the Division
Bench, as earlier noticed, allowed the respondents to
prosecute their studies in the second year.
The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the
amended Clause 17 applies with immediate effect to all the
students and noticing that the amended Regulations have
reduced the percentage of the marks to be secured by the
students, it was held that the respondents could take
advantage thereof and, thus, it was declared that the
respondents should be deemed to have passed the first year
course.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
The amended Clause 17 of the Regulation was
incorporated by the Institute in the information Brochure
for the academic year 1999-2000. The amendment had been
effected on 10th May, 1999. Under the amended clause of
the Regulation, the percentage required to be obtained by a
student was reduced and on failure to attain the minimum,
students were required to withdraw from the programme and
leave the Institute. The relevant part of the amended
Clause 17 reads as under :
"17(a) A student will be required to
withdraw from the undergraduate programme
and leave the Institute.
(i) if at the end of first year, he/she is
unable to secure a CGPA of greater than or
equal to 3.70 and earn 40% of the credits
offered in the approved scheme of courses:
(ii) if at the end of second year, he/she is
unable to secure a CGPA of greater than or
equal to 4.50 and earn 50% of the credits
offered in the approved scheme of courses."
While the above Regulation reduces the percentage, it
also provides that on failure to secure the reduced
percentage a student is required to withdraw from the
course and leave the Institute. In other words, it takes
away the right of repeating the papers which had been
provided for in the unamended Regulation.
On admitted facts, when the respondents joined the
course in the academic year 1997-98 and also when they
repeated the first semester, as noticed above, what was in
vogue was the unamended Regulation that permitted a student
to repeat the examination. The respondents did not make
the required grade as per unamended clause as reproduced
earlier. Taking advantage of the unamended clause in the
Regulation, they reappeared but were unable to secure CGPA
of 4.5. The respondents, therefore, could not be permitted
to continue with the course and resultantly their names
were removed from the rolls of the Institute on 13th July,
1999.
The amended Regulation did not provide for repeat
examination. The fact that in the repeated examination,
the respondents have obtained the CGPA as required by
amended clause of the Regulation is of no consequence since
under the unamended Regulation, they were required to
secure CGPA of 4.5 and otherwise they were required to
leave the Institute. Admittedly, they could not secure
CGPA of 4.5. Their names were, thus, rightly struck off
from the rolls of the Institute.
The respondents cannot be heard to say that they
should be allowed to repeat the papers as is provided by
unamended clause of the Regulation and should also be
allowed advantage of amended clause insofar as reduced
percentage is concerned despite the fact that the amended
clause takes away the right to repeat the papers.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
The learned Single Judge on correct interpretation of
the Regulation rightly came to the conclusion that the
amended Regulation was not applicable and said that :
"There under the amended regulation, the
very concept of repeat year examination has
been done away with. Under the amended
regulation, if a candidate fails to make the
requisite CGPA and credit percentage, he
will be required to leave the institute and
discontinue his course. Furthermore, the
term first year cannot be construed to mean
or include the repeat year examination on
the true interpretation of the relevant
regulations and rules governing the subject.
If new regulation is made applicable from
May 1999, the candidate obviously could not
have taken the repeat year examinations even
because there would be no re-appear
examination as per the amended regulation.
Thus, the interpretation provided by the
learned counsel for the petitioners leads to
an impossible situation which never existed
in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, more particularly, when the
petitioners has taken the first year repeat
examination voluntarily without prejudice
under the old regulation."
The learned Single Judge further held that to
prescribe the academic standards falls exclusively in the
domain of special bodies like Senate, Board of Governors
and Syndicate etc. The Court would normally not interfere
with such prescribed standards and especially when they are
intended to improve the academic standards in their
respective institutes. The scope of judicial review in
such matters would be very limited.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Division Bench
was clearly in error in coming to the conclusion that the
respondents could take advantage of unamended as well as
the amended Regulation. The Regulations do not provide for
any option as held in the judgment under appeal. The
decision of the Division Bench cannot, therefore, be
sustained.
For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the judgment
of the Division Bench and restore that of the learned
Single Judge and allow the appeal accordingly. The parties
are left to bear their own costs.
......................................J.
[S.P. Bharucha]
........................................J.
[Y.K.Sabharwal]
........................................J.
[Ashok Bhan]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
September 5, 2001