Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manwinder Singh vs Sant Longowal Institute Of Engineering ... on 29 May, 2012
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
CWP No. 12488 of 1994 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 12488 of 1994
DATE OF DECISION: May 29, 2012
Manwinder Singh .........PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering & Technology, Longowal
......RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to declare the result of the petitioner and grant admission to him to the course of Two Year Diploma in Computer Programing and Application in the promotion quota as per his merit position.
2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was a student of Two Years Certificate Course of Data Entry Operator and Work Processing in the respondent-institute and he appeared for the entry test thereof in 1992 and had been selected on the basis of his performance. The respondent- institute offered Certificate and Diploma Programmes in emerging technology subjects each consisting of two years from the academic session CWP No. 12488 of 1994 2 1994 and started offering degree course as there was provision for vertical linkage between various programmes wherein 50% of the students of each level i.e. from certificate to diploma and from diploma to degree with appropriate bridge course. It is averred that the petitioner could not complete the requisite 80% lectures in the 3rd trimester and he was not allowed to sit in the major test for the 3rd trimester which consisted of 8 subjects i.e. 5 theory and 3 practicals. Since he was a brilliant student, he was provisionally promoted to the fourth trimester. The petitioner thereafter kept getting regular promotion and ultimately reached the 6th and final trimester. In the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th trimesters, the petitioner's cummulative grade point average was 7.22 and during the 6th trimester, the petitioner made up his deficiency in the two practical subjects by putting in extra classes and cleared the same. The grade point average of the petitioner for the 6th trimester was 7.90. That the respondent-institute, vide order No. SLIET/AS/94/719 dated 01.07.1994 invited the students who had deficiency in lectures during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimester to attend the summer term for making up the deficiency and the petitioner had cleared two of the practical subjects and he had to make up deficiency in five theory subjects and one practical subject and accordingly, he got himself enrolled in the said summer term with the intention of making up deficiency so that he may be considered for promotion to the diploma course. However, vide notice dated 10.08.1994, the institute mentioned that the students who have registered for more than three courses in summer term, they will not be allowed to sit in the examination unless they rectify their registration forms and accordingly the petitioner had requested the Chairman of the Academic Committee that he was at that stage placed among the top five students of CWP No. 12488 of 1994 3 his course and he can also complete all his lectures in all the subjects and, therefore, he should be allowed to take the examination in all the subjects. At that point of time, the petitioner had been allowed to pursue the course of studies and since he made up his deficiency in all the subjects, he was also allowed to take the examination in all the five theory subjects as well as the one remaining practical and accordingly, he passed his examination in flying colours by obtaining the average of 7.38 and his cumulative grade point average for all the six trimesters was 7.68 and he was placed at position no. 2 in his class. It is accordingly pleaded that the respondents were refusing to consider the petitioner for promotion to diploma course on the ground that he could not have opted for more than three subjects during the summer term. That the reason given for denying the petitioner to be considered for promotion is that a majority of the students cannot make up the deficiency in more than three subjects during the summer term and, therefore, the action of the respondents in not considering him for promotion for Two Years Diploma Course in Computer Programing and Application was arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable.
3. The respondents, in their written statement, took the preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable as the academic year was divided into three regular terms and each term was known as a trimester of 14 weeks duration and the programs of studies consisted of prescribed courses sequentially distributed over the required number of trimesters. Normally, no instructions are arranged in summer vacation, however, if any academic course is run in summer, the period is termed as Summer Term, the duration of which may consist of 6-8 weeks. The courses in summer term run at an accelerated pace. The summer term CWP No. 12488 of 1994 4 was conducted pursuant to the decision taken by the Academic Committee and Academic Board whereby it was decided that the students could take not more than three subjects in summer term as the period of the term was short. It was a concession given to the students to make up the deficiency in three subjects at the most and similar rules are in existence in IIT Bombay and other institutions where the students can take maximum two subjects in the summer term. The students were informed of the decision regarding starting of the summer term and they were enrolled. On scrutiny of the registration forms, it was detected that many students had filled the registration form for more than three subjects and the petitioner was also one of those and all the students who had filled more than three subjects in the registration form, were called to correct their forms vide notice dated 09.08.1994 which was duly circulated in all departments and all hostels. Many students had responded to the said notice and reported to the office but a few were left and a notice was again circulated on 10.08.1994 indicating the roll numbers of those students who had not corrected their forms and the petitioner had also reported to the office and he elected three subjects for the term although he had filled five subjects originally. It was made clear that the petitioner had to make up deficiency in two more subjects and only after passing all the subjects, his result could be declared for whole of the certificate course and since he had not passed all the subjects, his result could not be declared. The stipulation of three subjects in the summer term was not meant for the petitioner alone but it was for all the students and since he was permitted for three exams only, his result could not be declared for all the subjects, as result of other students was also prevented for more than three exams.
CWP No. 12488 of 1994 5
4. On merits, it was pointed out that as per the rules of the Institute, students having attendance less than 80% were not eligible to sit in the major examination in one or more subjects and it was for this reason that the petitioner was not allowed to take major exams of 3rd trimester and so far as the promotion to the fourth trimester is concerned, the same was done in routine and since the petitioner had passed the other five trimesters but did not pass 3rd trimester, his CGPA could not be evaluated. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the summer term was not a regular term and it may or may not be conducted. It had to be decided by the Academic Board for arranging the summer term and the petitioner had taken all the exams on his own and he was not permitted to appear in more than 3 exams and his result of all the exams could be declared as he was yet to make up the deficiency of two papers before passing finally.
5. Vide order dated 11.10.1994, the Division Bench of this Court admitted the case for regular hearing and ordered that the result of the petitioner may be declared and the petitioner may be considered for promotion to the higher class if he is found entitled on merits. While considering the case of the petitioner on merits, the case of all the candidates similarly situated, shall also be taken into consideration, which order was, however, subject to the decision of the present writ petition. It was further clarified that the order shall not entitle the petitioner to concession in attendance.
6. The case came up for regular hearing on 15.05.2012 and fresh notice was issued to the counsel for the respondent for 29.05.2012, but none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of being informed telephonically by the office.
CWP No. 12488 of 1994 6
7. Counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner was given admission in Two Year Diploma in Computer Programing and Application and thereafter has passed out of the said course. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner has to be eligible as per the Rules and Regulations of the institute and in case his attendance was less for the 3rd trimester, the respondent-University was within its jurisdiction to deny promotion to the next course since the summer term is only an accelerated term and there was a limitation as to how many subjects could be completed in the said summer term.
8. The stand of the university for all students is that they had permitted registration form for only three subjects and the petitioner had five subjects to clear and he was not being considered.
9. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in view of the interim order dated 11.10.1994 passed by the Division Bench of this Court while admitting the writ petition and directing that the petitioner would be considered for promotion to higher classes if he is found entitled for session and in view of the fact that the petitioner has already passed out of the said higher class and a period of almost 18 years have passed by, it would be unjust and unfair to the petitioner to deny him the main relief in the writ petition as he would have taken employment on the strength of the said diploma course.
10. Accordingly, keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the interim order dated 11.10.1994 passed by the Division Bench of this Court is made absolute and the respondent- university is directed to grant a final diploma certificate in Computer CWP No. 12488 of 1994 7 Programming and Application and not withdraw the said diploma granted to the petitioner as it would cause extreme hardship to the petitioner after a period of almost two decades.
11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
29.05.2012 (G.S. Sandhawalia) shivani Judge