Uttarakhand High Court
Km. Divyanshi Tiwari vs Vice Chancellor Gb Pant University And ... on 4 September, 2015
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: K.M. Joseph, V.K. Bist
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
(1) Special Appeal No. 463 of 2015
Km. Komal Yadav. ..... Appellant.
Versus
Vice Chancellor GB Pant University
And ors. ..... Respondents.
AND
(2) Special Appeal No. 464 of 2015
Mr. Pankaj Kuamar ..... Appellant.
Versus
Vice Chancellor GB Pant University
And ors. ..... Respondents.
AND
(3) Special Appeal No. 465 of 2015
Km. Divyanshi Tiwari. ..... Appellant.
Versus
Vice Chancellor GB Pant University
And ors. ..... Respondents.
Mr. SK Mandal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Devang Dobhal, Advocate for the University/respondent
nos. 2 & 3.
Dated: September 4, 2015
Coram :Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
K.M. Joseph, C.J. (oral):
Appeals being connected, we dispose of the same by a common judgment.
2. Appellants in Special Appeal Nos. 463 of 2015 and 464 of 2015 are students, who are registered for Ph.D. with the respondent University. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1933 of 2015 (MS) approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Regulation 25 (1) and Regulation 25 (1) (a) of Chapter V of the Academic Regulation 2013 of the University (contained in annexure no.4 to the writ petition). II. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the 2 respondent no.2, by which dropped the petitioner from the University on account of poor academic performance (contained in annexure no.2 to the writ petition).
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to give admission to the petitioner in the 2nd year of Doctor of Philosophy, (Major Agronomy) in the respondent University and permitted to complete her degree programme without any technical objections."
3. Similarly the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1934 of 2015 (MS) approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Regulation 25 (1) and Regulation 25 (1) (a) of Chapter V of the Academic Regulation 2013 of the University (contained in annexure no.4 to the writ petition). II. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the respondent no.2, by which dropped the petitioner from the University on account of poor academic performance (contained in annexure no.2 to the writ petition).
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to give admission again to the petitioner in the 2nd year of Doctor of Philosophy, (Major Entomology) in the respondent University and permitted to complete his degree programme without any technical objections."
4. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions.
5. Likewise, appellant in the Special Appeal No. 465/15 is a student, who is pursuing his post-graduation. She approached the Court seeking the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Regulation 25 (1) and Regulation 25 (1) (a) of Chapter V of the Academic Regulation 2013 of the University (contained in annexure no.4 to the writ petition) 3 II. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the respondent no.2, by which dropped the petitioner from the University on account of poor academic performance (contained in annexure no.2 to the writ petition).
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to give admission to the petitioner in the 2nd year of Master of Science (Major Foods & Nutrition) in the respondent University and permitted to complete his decree programme with and technical objections."
6. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions, inter alia, finding that Regulation 25, which is challenged, in fact, by the appellants, contemplated the students being removed without a right to petition for readmission, in circumstances, where their CGPA falls below 6.50 in respect of Ph.D. students and below 6 in respect of postgraduate students.
7. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants would seek to point out that there is a distinction between 'CGPA' and 'OGPA'. He drew our attention towards the definitions of 'GPA', 'CGPA' and 'OGPA', which read as follows:-
"GPA= {Total points secured in all courses registered in that academic year/{Course credits offered.
CGPA= {Total points secured/"Course Credits (for all courses completed up to that semester) OGPA= {Total points earned} after excluding failure points)/ "Course Credits.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that actually if 'OGPA' were calculated, the appellants would have the right to petition for readmission.
410. In the representation filed by the appellants, actually the appellants have made a statement showing that they have obtained 'OGPA' less than the limit, which is sought to be explained as a mistake.
11. Having regard to the fact that the destiny of the appellants is deeply impacted and having regard to the definitions of 'CGPA' and 'OGPA', even under the Regulations, we will think that the requirement of justice will be satisfied, if the appellants are permitted to make a fresh representation before the Registrar, who will immediately place the same for consideration before the competent Authority.
12. In such circumstances, the Appeals are allowed partly, and in modification of the order of the learned Single Judge, we direct that if the appellants represent their grievance before the Registrar of the University, who will immediately place the same before the competent Authority, showing their entitlement for being readmitted within a period of one week from today, accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment, the competent Authority will consider and take a decision on the same, in accordance with law, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the representation.
13. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges.
(V.K. Bist, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
04.09.2015
NCM: