Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aayush Goel vs Guru Nanak Dev University on 21 August, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CWP No.16423 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No.16423 of 2013
Date of Decision:21.08.2013
*****
Aayush Goel
. . . .Petitioner
Versus
Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and another
. . . . Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*****
Present: Mr.A.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr.Gursher Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Amrit Paul, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The petitioner is a student of B.Tech (Computer Science & Engineering) course, admitted in the academic session 2012-13 in the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar [for short 'the University'].
The University introduced in its curricula 'Credit Based Continuous Evaluation Grading System' in almost all the courses under the Statutory 'Credit Based Continuous Evaluation Grading System' Ordinance of 2011-12 [for short 'the Ordinance'] made under the provisions of Guru Nanak Dev University Act, 1969 [for short 'the Act']. CWP No.16423 of 2013 -2-
The 'Credit Based Continuous Evaluation Grading System' is a relative grading system in which grading is done with respect to other students. The system is transparent to the extent that the evaluated answer books are shown to the students within few days of evaluation in the class, and corrections, if any, done immediately and marks and consequent grades in each subject are made known to the students then and there in their respective departments, even before the formal declaration of the results by the University.
The relevant provisions of the Ordinance are as under: -
"1. Semester System:
The academic Programme shall be based on semester system: • Autum Semester : July to December • Spring Semester : January to June"
"Summer Term The summer vacation period intervening the two semesters may also be utilized for offering courses to make up deficiency of students during their previous year of study. Further, that only CWP No.16423 of 2013 -3- those courses shall be offered in which the minimum number of students is five, and that fee shall be charged for summer term course separately. Summer term may also be utilized to offer pre-Ph.D. Courses."
"7. Grading System Grading will follow Credit based System, the details of which are given below:
Xxxx 'Semester Grade Point Average' (SGPA) means weighted average of grades in a semester.
Xxxx 'Cumulative Grade Point Average' (CGPA) means weighted average of grades in all the semesters, at the end of any semester or at the end of course completion.
X x x x"
"SGPA and CGPA shall be
calculated up to two decimal
places, after rounding off the third
CWP No.16423 of 2013 -4-
decimal to the nearest second
place integer decimal, hence
0.005 to be increased to 0.01
Grades shall be awarded as per
the following table:
Credit Courses
Academic Gra Grade Percent
performance de points score in
absolute
marking
system
Outstanding A+ 10 81-100
Excellent A 9
Very Good B+ 8
Good B 7 As per
(Average) bunching
Fair C+ 6 system
Marginal C 5
Deficient D 4
Poor E 2 21 to 30
Very Poor F 0 0 to 20"
According to the aforesaid system, if the
Cumulative Grade Point Average [for short 'the CGPA'] falls below 4.5 at the end of the second semester of any year, the student is declared as having failed in that year and will have to seek re-admission to the Ist semester of that year. Moreover, a student getting 'E' or Lower Grade in any course is treated as having failed in that course. It is also provided therein that if a student maintains CGPA of 4.5 at the end of the second semester of the session, but fails in a maximum of CWP No.16423 of 2013 -5- two courses during the two semesters of that year, he is promoted to the next year but he is required to clear these courses during the summer term or subsequent semesters within the duration of maximum period specified to complete the degree. If a student maintains CGPA of 4.5 at the end of the second semester of the session, but fails in three or more courses during all the preceding semesters taken together, at the end of the session including summer term, he is to be declared as having failed in that year and would have to seek re-admission to the first semester of that year.
The petitioner studied for the first and second semesters of the first year of his B.Tech. Course during the academic year 2012-13 and failed in one course in the first semester and one course in the second semester and thus failed in a total of two courses at the end of the academic session 2012-13, detail of which is as under: -
"Semester Name of Result SGP CGP
course/subject
Ist Maths-I One E/F 4.50 -
(MTL-101) grade (Fail)
IInd Maths-II One E/F 4.43 4.46"
(MTL-102) grade (Fail)
It is pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was shown his answer sheets of second semester on 24.5.2013 in which he scored 11 marks more than the marks obtained in first semester but failed to clear one subject, namely Mathematics-II. It is submitted that CWP No.16423 of 2013 -6- notice dated 11.6.2013, by which it is submitted that on 31.5.2013 a notice was issued as per Clause (d) of Ordinance 7 of the 'Credit Based Continuous Evaluation Grading System', if a student maintains CGPA of 4.5 at the end of the 2nd semester of the session but fails in three or more course during all the preceding semesters taken together, at the end of the session including summer term will be declared as having failed in that year and will have to seek re-admission to the first semester of that year. But as per the Vice Chancellor, the students who have even failed in maximum three or four courses were allowed to attend the summer term for any two courses but the said relaxation was given to only those students whose overall CGPA is 4.5 or more before attending the summer course. In continuation of this notice dated 31.5.2013, modified circular was issued on 11.6.2013 by which it was provided that as per orders of the Vice Chancellor issued as a one time measure, the existing students would be eligible to attend the summer term course during the present summer term in any number of courses/subjects even if they have CGPA of less than 4.5. It is pleaded that the petitioner was not aware of the modified notice dated 11.6.2013 and hence he could not avail the concession. It is also averred that the petitioner was down with Jaundice during the month of June and hence could not appear in the summer term examination but when he went to CWP No.16423 of 2013 -7- deposit the fee for the third semester he was intimated by the authorities that he would not be allowed admission in the third semester as he could not secure CGPA of 4.5. It is also pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the note provided under the heading of 'the grading system' in the prospectus for the Session 2012-13, a student is required to maintain a minimum of 4.5 SGPA at the end of each semester but if he gets 'E' of lower grade in any course then he will be treated as having failed in that course and shall have to repeat with the approval of Board of Control, and will have to obtain at least 'D' grade in that course within specified period as per the prevailing rules. The weight of 'E' and 'F' will not be counted in SGPA or CGPA. It is also pleaded that the petitioner has been discriminated because identically placed students namely Naresh of B.Tech course admitted in 2011 with 5 supplementaries where CGPA and SGPA is less than required 4.5 score and Sunaina with 4 supplementaries with CGPA & SGPA less than required 4.5 score, were allowed to be admitted to the next year and summer term etc. The other identically placed students who were promoted and allowed to sit in summer course of year 2011 with less CGPA and SGPA are Raman and Varun. The case of the petitioner being similar, if not better, would have also sought admission in the summer course offered by the University in June, 2013 but since no information regarding CWP No.16423 of 2013 -8- the result/grades obtained were given to the petitioner till the time when he went to deposit the fees for the next year, he missed the opportunity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that amendment made by the respondents on 8.5.2013 is to the detriment of the petitioner as it has been made without having a retrospective effect. The petitioner could not have used the benefit of attending the summer course and taking the examination to clear the supplementaries because intimation with regard to his result was not given to him otherwise the petitioner failed in two examination of Math-I of the Ist Semester and Math-II of the IInd Semester, which he could have cleared in summer course. It is also argued that the petitioner has been discriminated as similarly situated students have been promoted to the next higher classes.
The respondent has filed its reply in which it is averred that the petitioner is not eligible to be promoted to the next class as his CGPA is less than 4.5 and he has not cleared his two supplementary examinations in which he has failed. It is also submitted that the provisions of the Ordinance have been upheld by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 10.9.2012 passed on CWP No.12765 of 2012 and further approved by a Division Bench in LPA No.1658 of 2012 on 18.10.2012.
CWP No.16423 of 2013 -9-
The respondent has also filed an additional affidavit of the Registrar on the directions of this Court to counter and categorically answer the allegations of the petitioner about discrimination. It is averred that all the students who have been referred to by the petitioner in para 7 of the writ petition namely, Mr.Naresh having CGPA of less than 4.5 in the second semester was declared failed and reverted to the Ist semester of his course and the other three students had a CGPA of more than 4.5 and have been promoted to the 3rd semester of their courses. It is reiterated by the Registrar of the University that neither in any past session or in the current session any student has been allowed by respondent No.1/University to be promoted to the 3rd semester who had a CGPA of less than 4.5 at the end of the 2nd semester. It is also averred that all the students mentioned in Para 7 of the writ petition have appeared in the summer course and passed their examinations.
It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has himself admitted in the writ petition that he was shown his answer sheets of 2nd semester and therefore, he knew about his marks therein, on 24.5.2013 itself. It is further averred that as per Clause 13 of the Ordinance, the multiplication factor of 8.9 for converting the grade (under the CGPA system) into marks (under the percentage system) is clearly given, and conversely, therefore, CWP No.16423 of 2013 - 10 - the marks can be easily converted in grades (under CGPA system) by using the factor of 8.9 by using the calculator as been done by all hundred of students and the petitioner being the student of B.Tech. cannot be heard to say that he cannot do the conversion from marks into grades. Therefore, the petitioner very well knew about his grade on 24.5.2013 or could calculate his SGPA of 4.43 in second semester and the consequent CGPA of 4.46 by calculating the simple average of his SGPA of 4.50 of 1st semester and his SGPA of 4.43 of the 2nd semester. It is also averred that as per Clause 7(a) read with Clause 7(d) of the Ordinance, the petitioner even though having failed (E/F grades) in minimum 2 i.e. less than 3 subjects/courses, in the 1st and 2nd semesters taken together but his CGPA being less than 4.5 i.e. 4.46 at the end of his second semester would not be eligible for promotion to the 3rd semester in the academic session 2013-14 and he is required to seek re-admission in the 1st semester of his B.Tech. course in 2013-14.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Nikhil Gulati" 1998(2) RSJ 153 (SC), "A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another" 1986 (2) SCC 667 and has relied upon the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP CWP No.16423 of 2013 - 11 - No.12765 of 2012 decided on 10.9.2012 and order passed by a Division Bench in LPA Nos.1658 of 2012 on 18.10.2012.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to the order of the Division Bench in LPA Nos.1658 of 2012 on 18.10.2012 in which it was observed that "the non- attending of Summer Term Course may be on account of action of the University or the negligence of the appellants, the fact remains that both the appellants approached this Court in July, 2012 when the duration of Summer Term Course has come to an end. Therefore, the appellants cannot be granted any permission to attend Summer Term Course at this stage. The only option available with the appellants in terms of the Rules is to seek re-admission in first semester".
Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the petitioner did not join summer course as he himself stated that he was down with jaundice for which he cannot blame the University who had given a one time opportunity to all the existing students to attend summer course in any number of the courses/subjects even if they have CGPA of less than 4.5. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the University had come forward to help such students to improve their grades during summer course who were not able to get CGPA of 4.5 or more and had failed in more than two subjects. It is further argued that the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of the 'Note' which is provided under 'the CWP No.16423 of 2013 - 12 - grading system' in the prospectus as the petitioner is claiming that the weight of 'E' & 'F' is not to be counted in SGPA or CGPA.
I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
Admittedly, the petitioner has taken admission in the Session 2012-13 and has failed in two courses i.e. in 1st Semester in Maths-I and in 2nd Semester in Maths-II and has CGPA in the 1st semester of 4.46 which is less than 4.50. Insofar as the issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to discrimination in Para 7 of the writ petition, a detailed reply has been given by the respondents by way of an affidavit of the Registrar of the University in which it has been mentioned that the student namely, Naresh has not been promoted to the 3rd semester because his CGPA was less than 4.5 in the second semester and was declared failed and the other three students namely, Sunaina, Raman and Varun had a CGPA of more than 4.5 and were promoted to the 3rd semester of their courses. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that no student, whether in the past or in the current session has been allowed by respondent No.1/University to be promoted to the 3rd semester who had a CGPA of less than 4.5 at the end of the 2nd semester. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that all these students have attended the summer course unlike the petitioner. CWP No.16423 of 2013 - 13 -
Insofar as the allegation of the petitioner that he was not informed about the grades of the 2nd semester, therefore, he could not attend the summer course, is concerned, it has been admitted by him in the writ petition that answer sheets of the 2nd semester was shown to him on 24.5.2013 in which he scored 11 marks more than the marks obtained in the 1st semester but he failed in Maths-II. In this regard, a detailed reply has been given by the respondents alleging that when the petitioner knew about his marks on 24.5.2013, he was to do a simple calculation as per Clause 13 of the Ordinance which provides for the multiplication factor of 8.9 for converting the grade (under the CGPA system) into marks (under the percentage system) and conversely the marks can be easily converted in grades (under CGPA system) by using the factor of 8.9 by using the calculator as has been done by hundred of other students and the petitioner being the student of B.Tech. (Computer Science and Technology) would not have the cheek to say that he was unable to do that conversion from marks into grades. Thus, the petitioner himself knew about his grade on 24.5.2013 that his SGPA was 4.43 in 2nd semester and consequently CGPA was 4.46 by calculating average of 4.5 in 1st semester and CGPA was 4.43 in 2nd semester.
The third argument of the petitioner that he was not informed about the modified circular dated 11.6.2013 CWP No.16423 of 2013 - 14 - otherwise, he would have taken recourse to the summer course is also inconsequential because it is pleaded by him that he was down with jaundice during the month of June and in that circumstance he was obviously could not have joined the summer course for which he cannot blame the University for not informing him about the order dated 31.5.2013 modified on 11.6.2013 in which one time measure has been given to all the existing students to attend summer course during summer term in any number of subjects if their CGPA is less than 4.5. Lastly, the argument of the petitioner that he should have been given the benefit of the 'Note' providing under the heading 'the grading system' in the prospectus for the Session 2012-13, is concerned, it is submitted that the said 'Note' is not there in the Ordinance and cannot be relied upon.
Thus, looking from any angle, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 21.08.2013 JUDGE Vivek Pahwa Vivek 2013.08.27 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document