Uttarakhand High Court
Vivek Kumar & Another vs Indian Institute Of Technology Roorkee ... on 28 July, 2015
Equivalent citations: AIR 2015 UTTARAKHAND 153
Bench: K.M. Joseph, V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
(1) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 359 of 2015
Vivek Kumar and others .......... Appellants
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ........... Respondents
(2) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 365 of 2015
Arti Negi .......... Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others .......... Respondents
(3) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 366 of 2015
Satya Prakash Meena & Others .......... Appellants
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ........... Respondents
(4) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 367 of 2015
Anurag Raj .......... Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ......... Respondents
(5) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 368 of 2015
Bhukya Sai Ganesh .......... Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ........... Respondents
2
(6) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 369 of 2015
Sahil Meena .......... Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ........... Respondents
(7) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 370 of 2015
Ram Narayan Meena and others .......... Appellants
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ....... Respondents
(8) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 371 of 2015
Godisela Srimanth and others .......... Appellants
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others .......... Respondents
(9) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 372 of 2015
Arvind Meena .......... Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ....... Respondents
(10) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 373 of 2015
Prashant Meena .......... Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ....... Respondents
3
(11) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 374 of 2015
Mehta Bhavya Bhadresh ...... Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ....... Respondents
(12) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 375 of 2015
Tirunamala Phani Mohan .......... Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ....... Respondents
(13) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 376 of 2015
Pradeep Kumar Meena .......... Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ....... Respondents
(14) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 379 of 2015
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ......... Appellants
Versus
Mohammad Saif Anwer ....... Respondent
AND
(15) SPECIAL APPEAL No. 380 of 2015
Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee and others ......... Appellants
Versus
Anurag Memrot ....... Respondent
4
Present: Mr. Arvind Vashish, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak,
and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Mr. M.C. Bhatt,
Advocates for the writ petitioners /appellants.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee.
Coram : Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
JUDGMENT
Date: 28th July, 2015 K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Since these appeals raise common issues, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment.
2. These appeals arise out of writ petitions filed by undergraduate students of the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (hereinafter referred to as "the Institute"). The writ petitioners are all students pursuing undergraduate courses in B. Tech. or integrated courses. Each year is divided into two semesters called the Autumn and the Spring Semesters. The Institute taking refuge under Regulation 33(a) terminated the enrolment of the writ petitioners. We extract Regulation 33(a).
"33(a) The enrolment of a student in a programme, shall stand terminated if he/she fails to earn the minimum number of credits specified at different yearly levels in the programme as given in Appendix-'J' and fails to secure minimum CGPA of 5.00, notwithstanding the fact that the student has or has not been put under academic probation. Semester withdrawal will be excluded to determine the yearly level of a student for this purpose. This condition will also not be applicable if a student is not allowed to register for the courses of current year in accordance with 18(2). The communication regarding termination of enrolment shall be issued by the Academic Section within fifteen days from the date of declaration of results."5
3. In all cases save three the writ petitioners had obtained the minimum credit points as provided in Regulation 33(a) read with Schedule 'J', but they did not obtain 5 CGPA. In the two appeals filed by the Institute, the writ petitioners are students, who had not obtained minimum credit in Regulation 33 but had obtained 5 CGPA within the meaning of Regulation 33(a). In one of the appeals, i.e. Special Appeal No. 375 of 2015, the concerned student had neither obtained minimum credit as required under Regulation 33(a) nor did he acquire 5 CGPA.
4. The writ petitions filed by the students, who had obtained the minimum credit points, but had not obtained 5 CGPA were dismissed by the learned Single Judge, whereas the writ petitions, two in number, filed by the students who had obtained 5 CGPA, but not obtained the minimum credit points as required under Regulation 33(a) were allowed by the learned Single Judge. It is feeling aggrieved by the same that the writ petitioners, on one hand in one set of cases as aforesaid feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitions and the Institute on the other hand in respect of two students, wherein the writ petitions were allowed and their cases have been directed to be considered have challenged the common judgment of the learned Single Judge.
5. We have heard Shri Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants, who have not obtained 5 CGPA. We also heard Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel who appeared in Special Appeal Nos. 359 of 2015, 366 of 2015,367 of 2015, 368 of 2015, 370 of 2015 and 371 of 2015. Besides we heard Shri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel, who appears for the Institute in all the appeals including the appeals filed by the Institute. Shri Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel also appeared on behalf of the respondents against which appeals have been filed by the Institute.
66. Shri Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in not noticing the effect of Regulation 34 on termination of enrolment on Regulation 33. He further drew our attention to Regulation 18. He would submit that Regulation 18 (2) contemplates that the students who had failed in the courses being allowed to clear the courses in the years to come. He would submit that under the formula provided by the Regulation, actually the students when they get the requisite credits on being permitted to continue with the course/courses, in which they had failed, it would have an impact on the CGPA. In this regard, he drew our attention to the formula. He would more importantly submit that a perusal of Regulation 33(a) would show that the lawgiver has intended that both the conditions, namely, lack of minimum credit and also not obtaining 5 CGPA must be satisfied cumulatively. This conclusion is inevitable according to the learned senior counsel, having regard to the fact that word "and" is used in between the two requirements. He further reminds us that Regulation 33(a) is so worded that the command of the lawgiver is only that only when both the conditions are satisfied the termination of the enrolment would take place. In other words, according to him, the Regulation does not enjoin that for continuing with the course, a student must obtain the minimum credit and also obtain 5 CGPA. On the other hand, the Regulation declares that the enrolment will stand terminated on both the conditions being fulfilled simultaneously or cumulatively. He reminds us of the calamitous effect of resort to power under Regulation 33(a) on the destiny of the students. He points out that the students were selected on the basis of entrance examination, which was attended by lacs of students. He further submits that it is not as if the students are not meritorious. The proof of the merit, according to the learned counsel, lies in the fact that they have obtained the requisite minimum credit. The fact that they have not been able to attain the declared minimum of CGPA should be 7 viewed in the light of the fact that under the system merit is a relative concept and as the appellants were judged in the relative fashion, it should not be allowed to trample upon the destiny of the appellants/students, who have passed muster in an entrance examination attended by the lacs of students. He drew our attention to the decision of the Apex Court, reported in 1980(1) SCC 158 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Tek Chand Bhatia) for the proposition that the word "and" must be read as "and"in the factual matrix obtained in this case. He also sought to draw support the judgment of the Apex Court, reported in 2009 (1) SCC 610 (Guru Nannak Dev Univerrsity versus Sanjay Kumar Katwa and anotherl).
7. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the impact of Regulation 34 has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. According to him, while CGPA can be arrived at on an annual basis, its impact is legitimately intended to be felt only in the final year. He also submits that the permission, as contemplated under Regulation 18 being given for improving the credit and when the credit is improved, it will have impact on CGPA and, therefore, the students should not be denied benefit of Regulation 18.
8. Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the appellants also would submit Regulation 34(2) has been incorrectly understood by the learned Single Judge to mean that it only comes at the stage of the grant of degree. He would submit that the CGPA is intended to have effect only in the final year; both conditions must be fulfilled; and 'and' should not be read as 'or'.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Institute, Sri Vipul Sharma would submit that having regard to the conjoint reading of Regulation 33(a) and Appendix-'J', in the context provided in the 8 Regulations on a whole it would yield the inevitable result that the word 'and' should be read as 'or'. He would submit that mere fact that the student has been able to get minimum number of credits would satisfy only one of the requirements contemplated under the Regulation; what the student has assimilated and the result or outturn of his attending the course, for which credits are given, would be manifested by his performance, which is best assessed by looking at the CGPA. He would submit that what Rule 18 provides for is something different, in that, in a situation, which is governed by Regulation 33(a), Regulation 18 can have no play. In other words, he would submit that what Regulation 33(a) contemplates is an automatic termination of enrolment of those students, who have failed to acquire the minimum credit as also CGPA 5. There may be cases, where students may have obtained more than the minimum credit, but still failed to obtain the required credit and they are the students, who are contemplated under Regulation 18. He would emphasize that since the effect of Regulation 33(a) is that both conditions must be satisfied, the Appeals filed by the Institute must be allowed. It is not sufficient that the petitioners, who had not acquired minimum credit, had got 5 CGPA. The students cannot escape the wrath of Regulation 33(a); the students, who have not obtained minimum CGPA, cannot extricate themselves from the operation of Regulation 33(a).
10. In order to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to have the background of the Institute, as also, the various Regulations, Ordinances, which have been brought to our notice. The Institute claims to be first technical Institution in Asia and one of the premier technical Institutions in India. It is claimed that there are 4400 undergraduate students, 2000 postgraduate students, and nearly 1187 Ph.D. scholars, including overseas students from the scheduled countries. It is further stated as follows in the preamble:-
9"The institute follows modern methods of continuous evaluation through a credit system in all its UG, 5-year Dual-Degree and PG programmes. The system offers flexibility to progress at a pace commensurate with the capabilities of a student, subject to minimum credit requirements. There is no annual/semester pass or fail. The award system follows letter grades on a 10-point scale where the performance is measured in terms of weighted Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) and Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA). A student has to satisfy a minimum CGPA and earned credit requirements to be eligible for the award of degree."
11. Under the heading 'programmes', it is stated as follows:-
"The main aim of education at IIT Roorkee is to enable students to face the wide-ranging changes taking place in the fields of technology, environment and management with confidence. This includes undertaking design, development, construction, production, managerial and entrepreneurial activities, and higher studies in their chosen or allied interdisciplinary fields of study.
The Institute lays great emphasis on assisting students in the development of character and self confidence with management traits. To achieve these goals, the curriculum lays more stress on learning and less on teaching. Efforts are made to encourage self-learning, creative thinking, critical evaluation, spirit of inquiry and imbibing the culture of lifelong learning.
12. There appears to be eleven programmes, as they are called, at the end of which, the successful candidates will get degrees in B.Tech in concerned Branch. Besides the Institute also 10 offers courses for grant of Integrated Dual Degree (IDD), Integrated Masters of Science (IMSc) and Integrated Master of Technology (IMT). It is further stated as follows in regard to the structure of undergraduate among other programmes:-
"Structure of Undergraduate/Integrated Dual-Degree/ Integrated M.Sc./Integrated M.Tech. Programmes The four-year B.Tech. programmes and five-year B.Arch. programme comprise of courses divided in five distinct areas, namely: Institute Core, Departmental Core, Institute Elective and Departmental Elective Courses, and Co- Curricular Activities.
The five-year Integrated Dual Degree, Integrated M.Tech. and M.Sc. programmes comprise of courses other than above program specific courses, seminar and dissertation.
Credits assigned to various constituents of the Undergraduate/IDD/Integrated M.Sc. and Integrated M.Tech. curriculum structure are given in Tables-2. Credit and Curricular components for Institute core courses and Institute elective courses are given in the following Tables 3-4. The B.Tech. course structure is shown in Appendix-A. Institute Core Courses All UG/IDD/IMS/IMT students need to complete few Institute core courses on Basic sciences (BSC), Engineering Sciences (ESC) specific to the programmes, Humanities and Social Sciences (HSSMC) and General Sciences (GSC). Different departments have participated in designing these courses so as to cater to the requirement of their programme(s) with the parent departments. These courses are planned to give the students a firm base in the areas of science. These courses are presented in Table-3.
Departmental Core Courses (DCC) The Departmental core consists of courses considered essential for a chosen engineering/science discipline, including laboratory courses, industry oriented problem, engineering design and project. Educational tour, group discussion, development of technical communication skills and practical training form an essential part of the curricular structure.
11Institute Elective Courses The Institute Electives are the courses offered by different academic Departments/Centre to the students. These courses are divided into two basic categories viz. Humanities, Social Sciences and Management Elective Course (HSSMEC) and Open Elective Course (OEC). The students are free to select two courses from the HSSMEC category and one course from the OEC category, depending upon their interests and inclination. The Institute elective courses are shown in Table-4.
Departmental Elective Courses (DEC) The students are required to complete a number of Departmental Elective Courses offered by his/her parent department/centre. The Departmental Elective Courses are divided into two categories. Category-1 electives are common to all. Category-2 electives, which comprise electives from a specialized field, need to be picked so as the students can excel in a specialisation within a discipline.
Minor Specialisation Courses (MSC) The student with good academic standing (having CGPA>7.5) desirous of excelling in some specialisation in other than his/her own department may be allowed to take 4-5 additional courses equivalent to 18-20 credits from that specialisation. These courses have been defined as Minor Specialisation Courses (MSC). The courses from minor specialisation may be taken from any one engineering, science, humanities and management disciplines. These courses will have to be selected from a list of such courses (basket) offered by the departments, however, there will be a maximum limit to the seats. These students will be given degree in main engineering area with minor specialisation in other area. For example, the degree certificate will indicate B.Tech. in Civil Engineering with Minor Specialisation in Physics.
Departmental Honours Courses (DHC) The students with good academic standing (having CGPA>7.5) desirous of excelling in a particular specialisation of his/her parent department may be allowed to take 4-5 additional courses equivalent to 18-20 credits from that specialisation. These courses will have to be selected from a list of such courses (basket) identified and offered by the departments. These students will be given degree in main engineering area with Honours in his chosen 12 area of specialisation. For example, the degree certificate will indicate B.Tech. in Civil Engineering with Honours in Structures.
Each course of the above programmes has a number of credits assigned to it depending upon the academic load and weekly hours of lectures, tutorials, practical and self study. Normally, one credit is assigned to each lecture of one hour or each tutorial of one hour or practical of two hours.
Co-Curricular Activities The students are also encouraged to participate in a variety of co-curricular and sports activities with a view to develop their overall personality and groom a student to be an engineer-manager-scientist. These activities are also given weights in calculating the overall academic grade of a student.
(a) Discipline In order to enforce discipline among students, discipline is also treated as an activity. Two credits have been assigned to this activity. Grades will be awarded by Dean of Students' Welfare and will be tabulated in Spring Semester at the end of Final Year.
13. We also find that the students with B.Tech, amongst others, have to take National Cadet Corp and National Service Scheme and National Sports Organisation in the first year of selection. Two credits have been assigned to these activities. Thereafter, there is a reference to proficiencies, for which also, two credit courses are provided therein. Table 2 provides for the credits for the B.Tech programmes. It provides as under:
Table-2 Credits for B.Tech. Programmes CURRICULAR COMPONENTS CREDITS
(a) Institute Core (IC) Courses i. Humanities and Social Sciences (HSSC) 04 ii. Basic Sciences (BSC) 08+08* iii. Engineering Science (ESC) 04+12* iv. General Sciences (GSC) 03 *Department Specific Total 39 13
(b) Departmental Core Courses (DCC) i. Class Contact Core Courses 60-64 ii. Introduction to (Discipline) Engineering/ 02 Sciences iii. Engineering Analysis and Design 03-04 iv. Industry Oriented Problem/ Lab based 03-04 project/ Practical Problem/ Case Study v. Technical Communication 02 vi. B.Tech. Project 12 vii. Educational Industrial Tour Satisfactory/ Unsatisfactory viii. Practical Training/Internship 02 Total 84-88
(c) Humanities, Social Sciences and Management Elective Courses (HSSMEC) i. Humanities and Social Sciences 03 ii. Management Studies 03 Total 06 (d) Open Elective Course (OEC) 03
(e) Departmental Elective Courses (DEC) 22-26
(f) Minor Specialisation Courses (MSC)/ 18-20 Departmental Honour Courses (DHC)
(g) Co-curricular Activities (CCA) i. Discipline (To be awarded after Final Year) 02 ii. NCC/NSO/NSS (First Year) 02 iii. NSO/NSS/Proficiency (Second year to 02 Final Year and to be awarded after Final Year) Total 06 Grand Total 160-170 (For those who do not opt for minor specialisation /honours) Grand Total 178-190 (For those who opt for degree minor specialisation) Grand Total 178-190 (For those who opt for degree with honours) Grand Total 192-200 (For IDD/IMS/IMT)
14. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the Institute would refer to ordinance, which had been framed, which contains various definitions. Out of the same, we only refer to the following definitions in Regulation 2, which is as follows:-
"Applicant" shall mean an individual who applies for admission to any undergraduate (UG) or integrated dual-degree (IDD) or Integrated Masters degree (IMD) programme of the Institute;"14
'Course' is defined in Regulation 2(ix), which reads as follows:
"Course" shall mean a curricular component identified by a designated code number and a title;
'CGPA', which is in the heart of the Appeals, is defined as cumulative grade point average of a student.
'Student' is defined in Regulation 2(xxxv), which is as follows:
"Student" shall mean a student registered for an undergraduate, Integrated Masters or Integrated Dual- Degree programme for full-time study leading to the Bachelors degree or the Masters degree or the dual Bachelors and Masters degrees, as the case may be;"
Ordinance 3(3) and 3(4) provide as follows, inter alia,:
"Ordinance 3(3):
The minimum entry qualifications and the policy and procedure of admission to UG, IDD and IMD programmes shall be such as may be specified by the JAB/ Council/Government of India and/or laid down in the regulations."
Ordinance 3(4):
A UG or an IDD or an IMD student shall be required to earn a minimum number of credits through various curricular components like teaching/ laboratory courses, seminar, project, etc. at the Institute or at such other Institutions as have been approved by the Institute. For an IMD or an IDD student, the dissertation, project and other similarly designated academic activities shall have to be undertaken under the guidance of a supervisor(s) from the Institute. Provided that an IMD or an IDD student may be permitted by the DAPC/CAPC to carry out in full or part of his dissertation outside the Institute. In such cases, an additional supervisor from outside Organization/Institute, if considered necessary, may be appointed by the DAPC/CAPC on the recommendation of the supervisor from the Institute."
Ordinance 3(7) reads as follows:-
"A student shall be required normally to attend every lecture, tutorial and practical class. However, for late 15 registration, sickness or other such exigencies, absence may be allowed as provided for in the regulations."
Ordinance 3(11) provides as follows:
"The procedure for the withdrawal from a programme (UG/IDD/IMD), rejoining the programme, the award of grades and the SGPA/CGPA, the examination and all such matters as may be connected with the running of a programme (UG/IDD/IMD) shall be such as may be specified in the regulations."
15. Therefore, it is that it became necessary to frame the Regulations as to the matters to be governed by Regulations. Regulations have been framed and it is necessary to refer to the following provisions:
"2a(2) The list of currently offered UG programmes and the broad course structure are given in Table-1, Table-2 and Appendix-A. The structure and programme may be amended/modified in accordance with the decisions of the Senate and the Board.
2a(3) The duration of UG programmes leading to degrees of B.Tech. and B.Arch. are normally four and five years, respectively. However, the maximum duration for the UG programme is six years for the degree of B.Tech. and seven years for the degree of B.Arch. from the date of initial registration. The maximum duration of the programme includes the period of withdrawal, absence and different kinds of leaves permissible to a student, but it shall exclude the period of rustication. The duration for the UG programme may be altered in accordance with the decision of the Board/Council/Government of India."
Regulation 8 provides for the semester system and it reads as follows:-
"8(1) The academic programmes in the institute shall be based on semester system: Autumn and Spring semesters in a year with winter and summer vacations. A number of courses shall be offered in each semester.
(2) Each course shall have a certain number of credits assigned to it depending upon the academic load of the course assessed on the basis of weekly contact hours of lecture, tutorial and laboratory classes, assignments or field study and/or self study.16
(3) The courses offered in a semester shall be continually assessed and evaluated to judge the performance of a student."
Under Regulation 12, every student is to register in each semester on the scheduled date as per the academic calendar till the completion of the degree.
Regulation 18 is considerably relied on by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners / appellants. It would be appropriate to extract the same.
"Subject Registration. 18 (1) Every student shall register for the courses that he/she wants to study for earning credits and his/her name will appear in the roll list of each of these courses. No credit shall be given if a student is allowed to attend a course for which he or she is not registered. The performance of a student in all the courses, for which he/she has registered, shall be included in his/her grade card.
(2) Student should first register for the courses in which he/she has been declared failed in the previous year/semester as back papers and then register for the remaining courses of the semester to make up the total required credits for that semester. However, a student shall not be allowed to register for the courses offered to students of third year, if he/she has not cleared all the courses of first year and a student shall not be allowed to register for the courses offered to students of fourth year, if he/she has not cleared all the courses of second year and a student shall not be allowed to register for the courses offered to students of fifth year, if he/she has not cleared all the courses of third year.
(3) Registration of courses to be taken in a particular semester shall be carried out according to specified schedule. Late registration of courses is allowed only on payment of necessary fees. In-absentia registration may be allowed only in rare cases such as illness or any other contingencies, at the discretion of the Dean, Academics. (4) The Dean, Academics shall assign the time slots for the next semester and inform the Departments/Academic Centres, who shall then assign the teachers and decide the time schedule of the courses to be offered in the next semester. These tasks shall be completed as per Academic Calendar and the time schedule shall be made available by the department to the academic section. It will also be 17 displayed on the notice board of the department for the students at least one week prior to the date of registration. (5) Those students who are joining the first year of the UG or IDD or IMD programme shall complete the registration procedure on a specified registration date as per academic calendar.
(6) Under special circumstances, the students may be allowed late registration by the Dean, Academics till a specified date, by paying a late fee of Rs.1000/-, along with other necessary fees.
(7) A student may register for a minimum of 12 credits and a maximum of 24 credits. But on the recommendation of the department/centre, Dean, Academics, may allow a student to register for a maximum of 28 credits in not more than two semesters during the entire programme for fulfilling the requirements of minimum earned credits. In case the student is not allowed to register the courses of current semester due to back paper(s) of previous year, he/she may register for credit less than 12 depending on number of back papers. However, the credits for NCC/NSO/NSS/Rangering, proficiency and discipline shall not be counted for this purpose.
(8) A student shall have the option to add or delete courses from his/her registration during the first ten days of the semester as per Academic Calendar.
(9) Before the commencement of classes and at the time of registration, Academic Section shall give each student a registration record which shall be the official record of the courses registered; any change like adding or dropping a course will be marked on this registration record by the student and countersigned by the Chairman, DAPC/CAPC. (10) At the time of completing the registration form or any subsequent change in the registration, every student shall consult his/her Programme Advisor, who shall be appointed by the Chairman, DAPC/CAPC of a department/centre. The Programme Advisor shall advise the student in regard to the minimum and the maximum number of total and lecture credits to be registered for in the context of his/her past performance, backlog of courses, SGPA/CGPA and individual interest."
'Course credits' are governed by Regulation 21, which reads as follows:-
"21. Each course shall have an integer number of credits, which reflects its weight. The number of credits of a course in a semester shall ordinarily be calculated as under:
(1) Lectures/Tutorials: One lecture hour per week shall normally be assigned one credit. One hour of tutorial per 18 week shall be assigned one credit. However, the credits may be adjusted further by taking into consideration the quantum of work required to be put in by a student for learning the course.
(2) Practicals: One laboratory hour per week shall normally be assigned half a credit. Nor more than three credits may be assigned to a practical course having only laboratory component. The courses having two/three hours of contact every alternate week shall have one credit only. (3) Special courses like project, practical training, group discussion, discipline, proficiency, National Cadet Corps (NCC)/National Service Scheme (NSS)/ National Sports Organization (NSO) in the UG, IDD and IMD programme shall be treated as any other course and shall be assigned such number of credits as may be approved by the Senate."
Regulation 22 provides for course evaluation. The relevant portion is as follows:
"22.(1) A student shall be evaluated for his/her academic performance in a course through tutorials, practicals, home work assignments, term papers, field work, seminars, quizzes as Class Work Sessionals (CWS) and Practical Sessionals (PRS), Mid Term Examination (MTE), End Term Examination (ETE), and Practical Examinations (PRE) as applicable according to the guidelines formulated by IAPC for this purpose.
(2) The distribution of weights for each component shall be decided and announced by the Course Coordinator at the beginning of the course, subject to such stipulations as are given in the Scheme of Teaching and Examination for a given programme."
Regulation 23 provides for grading system, which being relevant, we extract the same:
"23.(1) The academic performance of a student shall be graded on a 10-point scale following guidelines given in Appendix-B. The letter grades and their equivalent grade points are listed in Table-5.
(2) The letter Grades awarded to a student in all the courses (except audit courses) shall be converted into a semester and cumulative performance index called the Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) and Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA), to be calculated by the procedures given in Appendix-B of these regulations.
(3) At the end of the programme, a student with CGPA of 8.5 and above shall be awarded 'First Division 19 with Distinction' and a student with CGPA between 6.5 and 8.5 shall be awarded "First Division".
(4) All the passing out students of a class shall be given ranks as "Rank XX in a class of YY students".
Regulation 24 provides that undergraduate programmes, among other programmes, may contain various courses of special nature in different curricula some of which are already indicated in Regulation 21(3) and there is reference to various courses.
16. We notice that under the head 'discipline' in Regulation 24(13), it is provided that every students has to undertake two credits of discipline in the programme for the requirements of the B. Tech. The student will be continuously evaluated for discipline during his entire period of enrolment and will be awarded at the end of final year. The grades earned by the student in discipline shall be accounted for as earned.
17. There is also reference to a Grade Moderation Committee in Regulation 25. Second Examination on Medical / Extra Ordinary Grounds is provided in Regulation 29 and Re- examination is provided in Regulation 30.
18. Regulation 31(a) provides for withdrawal from course. Semester withdrawal is contemplated under Regulation 31(b) and it permits a student, who is unable to attend classes for more than four weeks in a semester, to seek withdrawal from it, which will be done on the advice of the programme advisor. Semester withdrawal on medical grounds is separately provided in Regulation 31(c). We have already extracted Regulation 33. Thereafter, we deem it necessary to refer to Regulation 34, which reads as follows:-
"34 (1) The credits for the courses in which a student has obtained 'D' (minimum passing grade for a course) grade or higher shall be counted as Credit earned by him/her. A student who has a minimum CGPA of 5.0 and earned a 20 minimum number of credits as specified in the UG/IDD/Integrated Masters Degree curriculum he/she is registered for, is eligible for the award of the respective degree.
(2) A student, who has earned the minimum credits required for a degree but fails to obtain the minimum specified CGPA for this purpose, shall take additional courses till the minimum CGPA is attained within the maximum limit for different programmes."
19. This, in our view, is a conspectus of the relevant regulations, which are necessary to advert to for proper adjudication of the dispute. Appendix -A provides for the course structure for B.Tech and the credits which are contemplated. Appendix -B provides for the structure of grading of academic performance. It reads as under:-
APPENDIX-B Academic Performance Grades Grade Points Outstanding A+ 10 Excellent A 9 Very Good B+ 8 Good B 7 Average C+ 6 Below Average C 5 Marginal D 4 Poor F 0 Pass in Audit Courses AP -
Fail in Audit Courses AF -
Incomplete I -
Continued Project X -
Satisfactory S -
Unsatisfactory U -
The Explanation in 'F' Grade is referred to and the following remarks are found therein.
"The 'F' grades denote poor performance, i.e. failing a course. 'F' grade is also awarded in case of poor attendance (see Attendance Rules).
For the other (elective) courses in which 'F' grade has been awarded, the student may take the same course or any other course from the same category. Further, 'F' grade secured in any course stays permanently on the grade card. The weight, of 'F' grade is not counted in the calculation of the 21 CGPA, however, it is counted in the calculation of the SGPA.
In case a student is awarded a failing grade in the major project, he/she shall have to repeat the course in the form of a new project. Such a student will have to work full time on the project for a minimum period of three months and maximum 'B' grade can be awarded to the student."
20. Thereafter, the Regulation provides for the calculation of Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) and Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA). The formula is provided hereinafter:
"Calculation of Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) and Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) n S.G.P.A=∑ i =1 Ci x Pi n ∑ i =1 Ci Where, Ci = Number of credits of the i course of a semester for which SGPA is to be calculated. Pi = Grade point obtained in i course.
i = 1,...... n, represent the number of courses in which a student is registered in the concerned semester.
m C.G.P.A=∑ i =1 Ci x Pi m ∑ i =1 Ci Where, Ci = Number of credits of the i course, up to the semester for which CGPA is to be calculated.
Pi = Grade point earned in i course. A grade lower than 'D' (i.e. grade point<4) in a course shall not be taken into account.
i = 1,...... m; represent the number of courses in which a student was registered and obtained a grade not lower than 'D' upto the semester for which CGPA is to be calculated."
21. We also deem it necessary to refer to some of the general guidelines for the award of grades, which are as follows:
" (i) All evaluations of different components of a course shall be done in marks for each student.
(ii) The marks of various components shall be reduced to approved weights as indicated in the scheme of Teaching and Examination and added to get total marks secured on a 100-points scale. The rounding off shall be done only once and on the higher side.22
(iii) The method suggested in Appendix-B1 shall be used for the award of grades with or without marginal adjustment for natural cut offs.
(iv) In case of any difficulty the method suggested in Appendix-B2 can be used."
22. Appendix B1 provides for the Statistical Method for the Award of Grades. Table 6 deals with possible set of boundaries for Z variate. Appendix B2 deals with award of grade based on absolute marks system. Table 7 deals with marks boundaries for grades in absolute marks system. Thereafter, we deem it necessary to refer to Appendix-J, which as we have noticed is to be read along with Regulation 33. It provides as follows:
APPENDIX-J MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF EARNED CREDITS AND CGPA FOR CONTINUATION OF REGISTRATION S. Year B. Tech. Programs Integrated Programs# B. No. Arch.
With Minor With Dual M.Tech M.Sc.
Specialization Honours Degree . (IMT) (IMS)
(IDD)
1. I Yr* 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
2. II Yr 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
3. III Yr 72 72 72 72 72 72 72
4. IV Yr 100 106 106 100 100 100 100
5. V Yr 130 142 142 130 130 130 130
6. VI Yr 160- 178-190** 178- 162 162 162 162
170** 190**
7. VII Yr - - - 192- 192- 192- 226**
200** 200** 200**
* Excluding NCC/NSO/NSS Discipline credits,
** The figure should not be less than the minimum prescribed for the program including Co-curricular Activities (CCA). # Without Honours and Minor specialization. NOTE : These Credits include credits earned through Re-examination.
In addition to requirement of earned credits each student has to secure at least 5.00 CGPA for continuation of study.
23. The first question, which we must address, is whether the word 'and' in Regulation 33(a) is to be accorded the normal meaning or is to be understood in the context of the various provisions of Regulations, which we have adverted to. At this 23 juncture, we deem it appropriate to refer to the state of the law regarding this position. In the case of Ishwar Singh Bindra & others vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1968 SC 1450, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider this question in the context of the Drugs Act. The court took the view that the words 'Medicines' and 'Substances' have to be read as a whole and the word 'and' has to be read disjunctively. The court, inter alia, held as follows:
"11. Now if the, expression "substances" is to be taken to mean something other than "medicine" as has been held in our previous decision it becomes difficult to understand how the word "and" as used in the definition of drug in s. 3 (b) (i) between "medicines" and "substances"
could have been intended to have been used conjunctively. It would be much more appropriate in the context to read it disjunctively. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 3rd Ed. it is stated at page 135 that "and" has generally a cumulative, sense, requiring, the fulfillment of all the conditions that it joins together, and herein it is the antithesis of "or". Sometimes, however, even in such a connection, it is, by force of a context, read as "or". Similarly in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Ed., it has been accepted that "to carry out the intention of the legislature it is occasionally found necessary to read the conjunctions 'or' and 'and' one for the other"."
24. We may notice that in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Tek Chand Bhatia, reported in (1980) 1 SCC 158, the question arose in the context of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, wherein Section 2(ia)(f) provided as follows:
"(f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption."
The court proceeded to take the following view:
"11. In the definition clause, the collection of words 'filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed and insect-infested' which are adjectives qualifying the term 'an article of food', show 24 that it is not of the nature, substance and quality fit for human consumption. It will be noticed that there is a comma after each of the first three words. It should also be noted that these qualifying adjectives cannot be read into the last portion of the definition i.e., the words 'or is otherwise unfit for human consumption', which is quite separate and distinct from others. The word 'otherwise' signifies unfitness for human consumption due to other causes. If the last portion is meant to mean something different, it becomes difficult to understand how the word 'or' as used in the definition of 'adulterated' in s. 2(i) (f) between 'filthy, putrid, rotten etc.' and 'otherwise unfit for human consumption' could have been intended to be used conjunctively. It would be more appropriate in the context to read it disjunctively. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 3rd Edn., vol. 1, it is stated at p. 135:
"And" has generally a cumulative sense, requiring the fulfillment of all the conditions that it joins together, and herein it is the antithesis of OR. Sometimes, however, even in such a connection, it is, by force of a context, read as "or".
While dealing with the topic 'OR is read as AND, and vice versa', Stroud says in vol. 3, at p. 2009:
You will find it said in some cases that 'or' means 'and'; but 'or' never does mean 'and'. Similarly, in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, th 11 Edn., pp. 229- A 30, it has been accepted that "to carry out the intention of the legislature, it is occasionally found necessary to read the conjunctions "or" and "and" one for the other". The word 'or' is normally disjunctive and 'and' is normally conjunctive, but at times they are read as vice versa. As Scrutton L.J. said in Green v. Premier Glynrhonwy Slate Co.: "you do sometimes read 'or' as 'and' in a statute. ..
But you do not do it unless you are obliged, because 'or' does not generally mean 'and' and 'and' does not generally mean 'or'." As Lord Halsbury L.C. observed in Marsey Docks & Harbour Board v. Henderson the reading of 'or' as 'and' is not to be resorted to "unless some other part of the same statute or the clear intention of it requires that to be done". The substitution of conjunctions, however, has been sometimes made without sufficient reasons, and it has been doubted whether some of the cases of turning 'or' into 'and' and vice-versa have not gone to the extreme limit of interpretation."
25. In Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 610, the question arose in the following factual background. The appellant 25 University had prescribed the eligibility criteria for a post as Bachelor's Degree with not less than 45 per cent marks or a Master's Degree. The court was called upon to decide the question as to whether the University was right in contending that Master's Degree would come into play only in a situation, where the Bachelor's Degree was obtained with less than 45 per cent marks and, otherwise, the Master's Degree could not be relied upon. The court rejected the said contention and held, inter alia, as follows:-
"The eligibility criteria prescribed by the appellant University required a Bachelor's degree with not less than 45% marks or a Master's degree. The university's contention that the candidate must have a Bachelor's degree and only if his marks are less than 45% in the Bachelor's degree course, was the Master's degree to be considered, would mean that the word 'or' should be substituted by the words 'in the event of the candidate not having 45% marks in Bachelor's degree'. Reading such words into the provision is impermissible. The word 'or' is disjunctive. No doubt, in some exceptional circumstances, the word 'or' has been read as conjunctive as meaning 'and', where the context warranted it. But the word 'or' cannot obviously be read as referring to a conditional alternative, when such condition is not specified. In view of the provision relating to eligibility being unambiguous and using the word 'or', it is clear that a Master's degree without a Bachelor's degree (as is possible) will satisfy the eligibility requirement."
26. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants sought to derive considerable support from the same.
27. In G.P. Singh on Principles of Statutory Interpretation, we notice the following commentary:
"The word 'or' is normally disjunctive and 'and' is normally conjunctive but at times they are read as vice versa to give effect to the manifest intention of the Legislature as disclosed from the context. As stated by SCRUTTON, L.J.:
"You do sometimes read 'or' as 'and' in a statute. But you do not do it unless you are obliged because 'or' does not generally mean 'and' and 'and' does not generally mean 'or'. And as pointed out by LORD HALSBURY the reading of 'or' as 'and' is not to be resorted to, "unless some other part of the same statute or the clear intention of it requires that to 26 be done". But if the literal reading of the words produces an unintelligible or absurd result 'and' may be read for 'or' and 'or' for 'and' even though the result of so modifying the words is less favourable to the subject provided that the intention of the Legislature is otherwise quite clear. Conversely if reading of 'and' as 'or' produces grammatical distortion and makes no sense of the portion following 'and', 'or' cannot be read in place of 'and'. The alternatives joined by 'or' need not always be mutually exclusive."
28. In the conspectus of the above legal position, the principle appears to be that, normally, the word 'or' is intended to mean 'or'. Equally, the word 'and' is intended to convey the meaning that the conditions, which are mentioned in the concerned provision, exist together and cumulatively. But, it is not an inexorable rule of law that the word 'or' cannot be read as 'and' and the word 'and' cannot be read as 'or'. It will all depend upon the context provided by the various provisions, which must be read as a whole. The primary function of this Court is to unravel the mind of the Legislature. There are various rules and tools available to the court. If the reading of the provision is as a whole and the context is not to be ignored, then, the word 'and' can be read as 'or' and the word 'or' can be read as 'and' in appropriate cases. No doubt, the court would not ordinarily displace the meaning of the word 'or' by supplanting it with the word 'and' and vice versa; but, equally, the court will not feel helpless in doing so, when the context renders such an interpretation imperative. It is the primary duty of the court to ascertain the intention of the legislature. If the interpretation is placed only on the grammatical meaning of the word 'or' and 'and' irrespective of the object and the context, the court would be failing in its duty to effectuate the true intention of the lawgiver. With these observations, if we consider the various provisions, which we have adverted to, the scheme, which is discernible to our minds, appears to be as follows:
The students attending the Institute, which is a premier Institute of learning, are expected to register themselves for the 27 concerned programme for which they have been duly selected, which is done on the basis of the result in the entrance examination, the counselling, the choice which they have expressed, as also the availability of seats based on the merit position and other relevant considerations. A programme consists of various courses. The programmes of the Institute are intended to churn out products of excellence. Excellence is determined on the basis of inputs intended to bring out a well-rounded personality, which is why we have noticed credit marks being given for discipline, NCC, sports and hobbies. Regulation 21 provides for the credit system. Essentially, we would notice that the courses are contemplated through the medium of lectures, tutorials and practicals. Depending on the course, for which they enroll, credit system is devised. The academic performance is also evaluated on the basis of classroom sessions, practical sessions, mid-term examinations and end-term examinations, which are referred to as components of the various courses. Weightage is given for these components. There is a formula for the grant of grade. A perusal of Appendix-'B' would show that it contemplates conversion of the Grades into grade points. The grade point, in turn, is again a part of the formula to find out the CGPA. One distinction, which was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Institute with regard to CGPA and SGPA is that whereas in SGPA, the denominator in the formula consists of all the courses, which had been attended, in the CGPA, the lawgiver excludes those courses, in which grades lesser than Grade 'D' is obtained. Grade 'D' is incidentally in the table, provides for something like the rock bottom in terms of the academic attainment. A perusal of the Appendix, which provides for course structure for B.Tech, would show that credits are provided in the semester, two in number, in every year. The number of grades would apparently vary according to the concerned branch of study, for which students have been enrolled, but Table 2 indicates the credits, which are to be obtained at the end of various courses.28
29. Our understanding of the Regulation 33 is that it contemplates three distinct contingencies, but, it provides for one consequence, which, from the stand point of the students, is fatal as their enrollments would stand terminated, as is indicated very clearly. The first contingency is where a student does not have the requisite attendance. The other contingency is where disciplinary action is taken. The third contingency is what we are concerned with, which is the non-conformity with the mandatory standards of academic performances. It is true, as contended by the counsel for the appellants students, that Regulation 33(a) declares that the enrollment of the students in a programme shall stand terminated if he fails to earn the minimum number of credit specified at different yearly levels, as given in Appendix-'J' and he fails to secure a minimum CGPA of 5. At first blush, the argument of the appellants students that the presence of the word 'and' in between the requirement to earn minimum number of credits at different yearly levels, as provided in Appendix-'J', and the words failure to secure 5 CGPA, would signal the intention of the lawgiver that both the conditions must be fulfilled for attracting the draconian effect of termination of enrollment. Equally, we are not oblivious of the wording of Regulation 33(a) being that a certain result, namely, the enrollment will be terminated if certain conditions are not fulfilled and, in that context, the word 'and' could be given the meaning as attributed to it by the appellants. We are, equally, conscious of the fact that the lawgiver has not worded it by stating that unless both the conditions are satisfied or, rather, if either condition is not satisfied, the enrollment will come to an end. The court must make a probe into the context of the statute. We must also seek light from the most important provision, which is Appendix-'J'. Appendix- 'J', which we have adverted to and which clearly provides in the very heading "minimum requirement of earned credits and CGPA for continuation of registration". The words are unambiguous. It provides for various minimum credits for various 29 years starting from the first year till the fourth year which is the ordinary term of the B.Tech. course, and even for the fifth and sixth year, which apparently has relevance in the context of Regulation
34. What is of greatest importance in this discussion, however, are the words, which are in our view most appropriately worded in red ink, that in addition to the requirement of earned credits, each student has to secure at least 5 CGPA for continuation of the study. Appendix-'J' must be read as integral part of Regulation 33(a). Without reading Appendix-'J', it is difficult to discover the true meaning of Regulation 33(a). In such circumstances, a perusal of the words, which we have adverted to, leave us in no manner of doubt that the lawgiver intended that to avoid consequences of termination of enrollment, not only must the students acquire required credits, rather the minimum credits as provided therein, but they must also have minimum 5 CGPA.
30. Regulation 33, as we have noted, contemplates very drastic consequences for lack of attendance, disciplinary action and failure to attend the high academic standards, which an Institute of higher learning has prescribed for itself and for students.
31. We must also remind ourselves that in academic matters, the Court would be loathe to interfere with the functioning of the Institutions. They are experts in the field. The Regulations are not challenged before us. We are obliged to give full effect to the Regulations.
32. We are not impressed by the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants/students that what Regulation 33(a) provides for limited to the credits as is given in Appendix- 'J' and there is no requirement that CGPA of five as such is also to be satisfied. In other words, the contention of the appellant is that there can be three situations according to them. Students may get 30 less than 5 CGPA and also less than the minimum credit. It is only in such a scenario that Regulation 33(a) would apply. On the other hand, if the students either have the required minimum credit, but not the requisite CGPA, or if they had requisite CGPA of 5 but not the minimum credits, the conditions are not apposite for invoking Regulation 33(a). We are of the view that this contention of the students cannot be accepted for the reason that an interpretation otherwise, is absolutely inevitable on a fair reading of Regulation 33(a) read with Appendix-'J'.
33. We are not impressed by the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/students that the words in Appendix-'J' written in red only mean that they have to obtain CGPA during the extended course contemplated under Regulation 34(2). We have already noticed the relevant Regulations. Running as a golden thread through the Regulations is the concept of credit and the academic evaluation on the basis of the components of the courses, which we have already referred to, which essentially contemplate various tests being theoretical or practical, mid-term written examination and the end-term examination. Besides, there would be group discussion etc. Earning credits would not mean that they should be allowed to pass muster when their academic performance is so dismal that it does not cross the threshold, which has been set for them under the Regulation. In this view also, we are of the view that the word 'and' in Regulation 33 must necessarily be read as 'or' to give full effect to the Regulation in conjunction with Appendix-'J' which is an integral part and also on a harmonious reading of the various provisions in the Regulation.
34. Time is now ripe for us to pass on to the consideration of the arguments based on Regulation 34. The very heading of the word Regulation is 'earned minimum credit and minimum CGPA for the degree'. Thereafter, the words of sub-regulation (1) provide 31 that the credit for the course, in which the student had obtained D, which is a minimum mark or higher will be treated as credit earned by him. This sentence is intended to convey the meaning as to what can be called as credit earned by him. In the programme consisting of various courses, the student, if he obtains D, whatever credit he has earned in respect of such a grade, he would be deemed to have acquired the credits, which are relevant to his having passed in the course. As to what is to be the minimum which he has to attain is a different story altogether. According to the Institute, it is as provided in Table 2, which provides the credit which is to be obtained. Thereafter, a situation may arise, where a student passes in the first, second and the third year and, when he is in the fourth year, which is the final year ordinarily in the B.Tech. course. He obtains the minimum credit, but he does not obtain the CGPA of 5. It is to cater to that student, who had exhibited the minimum requirement in terms of both CGPA score as also the minimum credit, that the lawgiver has decided to treat him differently. It is in respect of that student, where he has failed to obtain the specified CGPA requisite for the degree, that he is permitted to take additional courses till the minimum CGPA is attained. One limitation, which is culled out even there, is that the attempts to enhance the CGPA must fructify within the maximum time-limit prescribed for various courses. For B.Tech., the normal period is four years, but the maximum period within which he can obtain B.Tech. is specified as six years. For B.Arch., it is five years and seven years is the maximum period. Therefore, Regulation 34 (1) & (2) really provides for a situation, where the matters have reached the stage of final year and the student has had a consistently good record in a manner of speaking and therefore the lawgiver thought it fit that he should not be turned off the gates as would happen if the same situation had occurred at an earlier point of time in his career. We do not think that students have made out a case for juxtaposing of the facility, which is extended by the 32 lawgiver in Regulation 34 to a first year student, who, at the very threshold, is found to fall short of either requirement. When both the requirements are mandatory under Regulation 33(a), fulfillment of the requirements is indispensable to enable the student to continue with his study and to prevent the enrollment being terminated. We would think that the attempt made to draw support from Regulation 34 is without any basis.
35. The next provision, which we must necessarily consider, is Regulation 18. Much is canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants based on this provision. We would think that result of interplay of Regulation 18 & 33 would be as follows:
Regulation 33 contemplates a definite situation as we have mentioned where the student either does not obtain the minimum credit or he does not obtain the requisite of 5.00 CGPA. This is the line drawn as the rock bottom which a student must obtain to keep his enrollment alive. Short of this, there could be cases where the student concerned obtains the minimum credit point which is contemplated in Regulation 33(a), and he has obtained the required CGPA. Even though in the preamble portion, it is declared that the system does not involve failure or pass at the end of semesters or on an annual basis, when it comes to Regulations, we find that by way of Grade 'F', the lawgiver has intended to convey a situation where the student has failed or he does not acquired the attendance. Attending the various courses apparently to the satisfaction of the teaching staff would probably fetch him credit points, but in a situation, where he has not obtained the full credit points as contemplated in the programme concerned, but has obtained the minimum credit plus minimum CGPA would obviate the operation of Regulation 33 (a). A perusal of Regulation 18(4) would show that the authorities when they permit enrollment under Regulation 18 (2) are expected to make arrangements so that the concerned student is enabled to undergo the relevant courses in 33 which he seeks to acquire the requisite pass mark. We notice that the concept of minimum in CGPA is conspicuous by its absence therein. Even though Sri Arvind Vashisht, learned Senior Counsel would submit that if a student is unable to get the requisite credit marks in view of the effect of credit marks on CGPA in the formula, which is provided even the appellants/students can invoke Regulation 18. We are of the view that the said contention cannot be accepted as any such interpretation would be in the teeth of the clear provisions contained in Regulation 33(a) which contemplates a special situation and Regulation 18 (2) and 33 (a) must be given full effect on a harmonious construction of the Regulations. What is covered by Regulation 33 (a) cannot possibly be covered also by Regulation 18(2). In other words, what is contemplated in Regulation 18(2) must be something which is not provided for in Regulation 33 (a). Thus, it means that it enables a student who had not obtained the full credit points, but has obtained the minimum credit points within the meaning of Regulation 33 (a), to improve his position as provided therein.
36. We are equally unimpressed by the attempt made by Sri Arvind Vashisht to develop on the complexity of the ratio of the equation, but at the same time point out that the impugned credit point would have a direct impact on the CGPA or that it is to have relevance only at the end of the course. There is not much dispute that the CGPA can be worked out on an annual basis having regard to the components of the formula. The lawgiver has also contemplated pegging the CGPA at 5 which it has considered to be a reasonable index to measure the academic performance of the students. The Court will have nothing to do with it and it is a matter pertaining to an academic issue, particularly when the Regulation is not challenged. While it is true that in the formula credits as also the grade points would have an important role in ascertaining the CGPA, Regulation 33(a) is plain as daylight in referring to the twin 34 requirements for a student to pass muster. Therefore, the fact that CGPA is a product of the credit points in the manner provided by the formula is totally irrelevant. We must enforce the Regulation as we find it. Harsh consequences are intended by the lawgiver. The company Regulation 33(a) keeps with students not having requisite attendance as also students, against whom disciplinary action is taken, is a sure indicator of the value which the lawgiver attaches to the academic performance.
37. In such circumstances, we are constrained by force of the statutory regulation about the statutory nature of which there is no dispute that the requirement of the law is that a student would face termination of enrollment if he either does not have the requisite credits or he has less than 5 CGPA. If this is the interpretation of the Regulation 33(a), all the appeals filed by the students must be dismissed; whereas the appeals filed by the Institute must be allowed.
38. Consequently, the appeals filed by the students/writ petitioners will stand dismissed and the two appeals filed by the Institute will stand allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge will stand set aside. The judgment of the learned Single Judge, in regard to appeals filed by the students, will stand confirmed. There will be no order as to costs.
(V.K. Bist, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
28.07.2015 28.07.2015
P. Singh/Arpan