Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yashwant Birla And Others vs Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University And ... on 24 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(1)MPHT253
Author: A.K. Mishra
Bench: A.K. Mishra
ORDER Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. Petitioners are studying Master of Computer Application course in Government Engineering College affiliated to Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, M.P. Through this writ petition, they have challenged the legality of Clause 13 of the Ordinance framed by the University in relation to Master of Computer Application Semester Examination under Section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. For facility of reference, it is pertinent to quote Clause 13 of the Ordinance as under:--
"13. A candidate shall be eligible to appear in the succeeding semester examination only after having passed the preceding semester examination, provided that if a candidate fails in any one theory paper in any one semester examination, he will be promoted to the next semester course. A candidate failing in the theory paper of any semester shall he eligible to take examination of the paper in which he has failed along with the next examination of the concerned semester. He shall be eligible to carry the back log of one paper of each semester but in any case he shall not be permitted to carry backlog of more than two papers at a lime or one theory and one practical."
Grievance of the petitioners is that this Ordinance, quoted above, provides that a candidate shall be eligible t o appear in the existing semester examination only after having passed the preceding semester examination, provided he fails in one theory paper in any one semester, meaning thereby the candidate can carry backlog of only one paper. This way, this Ordinance is arbitrary and discriminatory since all other Universities in the State of Madhya Pradesh permit backlog of two papers. Therefore, the existing Ordinance deserves to be invalidated. Another grievance is that despite recommendation by Board of Studies for making suitable amendment in the Ordinance providing for backlog of two papers, no action has been taken by the University and the arbitrary and discriminatory Ordinance is allowed to continue.
2. Under Section 38 of the Adhiniyam, Ordinance making power is vested with the Executive Council. Section 39 of the Adhiniyam lays down procedure for making Ordinance. Clause 13 of the Ordinance quoted above envisaged that a candidate shall be eligible to appear in the succeeding semester examination only after having passed the preceding semester examination, provided that if a candidate fails in any one theory paper in any one semester examination, he will be permitted to the next semester course. A candidate failing in the theory paper of any semester shall be eligible to take examination of the paper in which he failed along with the next examination of the concerned semester. He shall be eligible to carry the backlog of one paper of each semester but in any case, he shall not be permitted to carry backlog of more than two papers at a time of one theory and one practical. For sustaining the plea of arbitrariness and discrimination, help is sought from the system prevailing in other Universities permitting backlog of two papers. We do not find any justification in the grievance raised by the petitioners.
3. Universities are autonomous bodies. They are created by the different Acts. They can provide for different courses and lay down conditions therefor. No grievance of discrimination can be raised nor claim for similar provisions asked for. It is for the University to decide what is best for the institution and the students. Simply because other Universities in the State have provided backlog of two papers for permitting the students to appear in the next semester examination, that would not invalidate the provision on ground of arbitrariness or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. Board of Studies may have approved amendment to the Ordinance providing for backlog of two papers like the other Universities but the same can not come into force unless approved by the Executive Council. University can not be mandamused to accept the recommendations of the Board of Studies and provide for backlog of two papers in the Ordinance since it is purely within the domain of the University to decide what it thinks best unless the conduct is completely perverse, grossly arbitrary and violative of provisions of the Constitution and statutory provisions conditioning the actions of the University.
Points raised by the petitioners have academic character which should be left to be decided by the University and Court should not interfere in the academic affairs of the University (Sec : AIR 1977 SC 615, V.S. Vishwavidyalaya Vs. Rajkishore, AIR 1986 SC 1448, Rajendra Prasad Vs. Karnataka University, and AIR 1987 SC 190, State of U.P. and another Vs. D.K. Singh and others). In AIR 1977 SC 615 (V.S. Vishwavidyalaya Vs. Rajkishore), the Apex Court said:
"12. We would also like to observe that in a matter touching either the discipline or the administration of the internal affairs of a University, Courts should be most reluctant to interfere. They should refuse to grant an injunction unless a fairly good prima facie case is made out for interference with the internal affairs of educational institutions."
5. Therefore, we are satisfied that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case on discrimination and arbitrariness against the University.
There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed in limine.
6. Writ Petition dismissed.