Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Chaudhary And Others vs Guru Nanak Dev University on 10 September, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012
Date of decision : 10.09.2012
Rakesh Chaudhary and others .....Petitioners
VERSUS
Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and another ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order shall dispose of nine petitions i.e. CWP No. 12765 of 2012 (Rakesh Chaudhary and others Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and another), CWP No. 12796 of 2012 (Jugav & Ors.Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar & anr.), CWP No. 13895 of 2012 ( Sulakhani Chabba Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar & anr.), CWP No. 14080 of 2012 (Jitin Gupta Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar & anr.), CWP No. 14066 of 2012 (Jatin Malhotra and another Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and another), CWP No. 15147 of 2012 (Narinderjeet Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and another), CWP No. 15377 of 2012 (Princedeep Singh & Ors. Versus Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012 2 Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar & anr.), CWP No. 17091 of 2012 (Alok Kumar Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar & anr.) and CWP No. 17092 of 2012 (Pankaj Kumar Mahato Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar & anr.).
A common question of law and facts arise in these nine writ petitions filed by the students, who are studying in various institutions under the jurisdiction of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. The grievance raised in these writ petitions is relating to denial of permission to the petitioners in these petitions to attend the summer courses for which there is provision made in the Credit Based Continuous Evaluation Grading system introduced by the respondent-University. The issue of law and facts being common in all these writ petitions, these are being disposed of through this common order. The facts have been noted from CWP No. 12765 of 2012 titled as Rakesh Chaudhary & others Vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and another.
The petitioners are students of B.Tech course being conducted by the respondent/University for the Session 2011-12. The petitioners would plead that the Credit Based Evaluation Grading System as introduced and referred to above, is confusing, unclear and contradictory. It is averred in the petition that the students were never made aware and explained the consequences of this system. A copy of the ordinance containing the condition and clauses is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. This system statedly has been introduced to enhance the quality of education and to bring about transparency in the system of evaluation. Detailed working of Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012 3 the system is then given out. It is based on semester system; Autum semester being from July to December and Spring semester being from January to June.
Summer vacation period intervening the two semesters can also be utilized for offering course to make up the deficiency of students during their previous year of study and is termed as 'summer term'. However, only those courses shall be offered in which the minimum number of students is five and separate fee is to be charged for summer term.
Each course offered by the department is to be identified by course code, consisting of string of six characters (these alphabets and three digits left to right) followed by the course title. Each course contain 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. One lecture hour per week is to be normally assigned one credit. One hour of tutorial per week is to be again assigned one credit. Theory courses shall be generally two to four credits and tutorials one credit each. For the purpose of practical, two laboratory hours per week shall be assigned one credit. Courses other than Lectures/Tutorials shall be treated as practical course.
The students would be continuously evaluated during the conduct of each course on the basis of their performance as given in the ordinance. Grades will be awarded by the Board of Control with all teachers teaching that class to be invited as special invitees, if Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012 4 they are not members of the Board of Control. As per the Grading system, the grading will follow Credit-Based System, the details of which are given in the ordinance. In this context, it is provided that 'Semester Grade Point Average' (SGPA) means weighted average of grades in a semester. 'Course' means a semester/summer term course. 'Credit' means weightage assigned to a course. 'Grade' means a letter grade assigned to a student on a 10 point scale. 'Grade point' means points assigned to the letter grade. 'Cumulative Grade Point Average' (CGPA) means weighted average grades in all the semesters at the end of any semester or at the end of course completion. The grades are to be awarded as per the following table:-
Credit Courses Academic performance Grade Grade Points Percent score in absolute marking system Outstanding A+ 10 81-100 Excellent A 9 Very Good B+ 8 Good (Average) B 7 As per bunching system Fair C+ 6 Marginal C 5 Deficient D 4 Poor E 2 21 to 30 Very Poor F 0 0 to 20 A student getting 'E' or lower Grade in any course will be treated as having failed in that course. If he/she fails in a core course, he/she will have to repeat the core course and if he/she fails in elective/interdisciplinary course, he/she will have the option to repeat the same course or opt different elective/interdisciplinary course in the same category with the approval of the Board of Control. He/she will have to obtain at least 'D' Grade in that course Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012 5 within the maximum period defined to complete the degree for that course. If a student maintains CGPA of 4.5 at the end of second semester of the session, but fails in a maximum of two courses during the two semesters of that year, he/she will be promoted to the next year. However, he/she will be required to clear these courses during the summer term or subsequent semesters within the duration of maximum period specified to complete the degree. Where a student maintains CGPA of 4.5 at the end of second semester of the session, but fails in three or more courses during all the preceding semesters taken together, at the end of session including summer term, he /she will be declared as having failed in that year and will have to seek readmission to the first semester of that course.
The provision regarding appearing in the summer term course is also regulated by the ordinance. A student can opt for maximum of two summer term courses to clear the courses in which he/she has failed. The Grade obtained in repeated course/courses shall replace the original grade and the SGPA/CGPA shall be calculated accordingly. This is how briefly the provisions of this ordinance regarding the Credit Based Continuous Evaluation Grading System are to operate.
The counsel for the petitioners has made reference to that part of the ordinance whereby the students can opt for summer courses to clear their re-appears examination.
Reference is made to circular issued by the University, where it is provided that the summer course would be offered only when there are more than five students available and the fee would Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012 6 be a sum of ` 10,000/-.
As already noticed, a summer course can be offered to make up deficiencies. It is averred that the summer courses are being offered in an arbitrary manner as some selected students were so offered the summer course whereas the same concession was declined to large number of other students like the petitioners. The petitioners, accordingly, have approached this Court through the present writ petitions and has pleaded for providing them an opportunity to make up the deficiency through summer courses so that they are able to clear their deficiencies and seek promotion.
On the face of it, the challenge, as raised in the petition, appears genuine and attractive too. It may also look a bit odd to notice that the University would first make provision for the students to make up deficiency by allowing summer courses but would allow this only when there are more than five students.
A notice was issued to the University and the University has filed detailed reply. The respondent/University has now explained how this Credit Based Continuous Evaluation Grading System works and what is the purpose and reason behind introducing such credit based system. The provisions of the ordinance giving details of this Credit Based Continuous Evaluation Grading System are already noticed above. It contains details regarding various aspects of the system, which include even the working of this system. Reference may be made to explain the relevant part of system in the light of challenge raised in the petitioner.
The opportunity to appear in re-appear examination, Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012 7 when a student has failed to obtain the requisite number of grades, may be noticed here. Instead of normal system of assessing the student in regard to his performance, Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) is to be achieved and the grades for this, as are required to be awarded, are given in a table, which is already reproduced above.
As per the provisions noticed in foregoing para, each candidate has to achieve Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 4.5 after the end of 2nd semester and only then such student would become eligible and entitled to be promoted to 3rd semester. A student, who is not able to achieve 4.5 CGPA at the end of 2nd semester, by taking into account grading obtained in the various courses undertaken by him in 1st and 2nd semesters then he is not to be promoted to third semester. In this context, a provisions is made in the ordinance providing a concession to those students, who are graded 'E' and 'F' in not more than two courses. Such a student, who is graded 'E' and 'F' in more than two courses then he is not eligible to appear in summer course re-appear examinations and, thus, not entitled to the concession of 'summer course'.
It is from here that the grievance of the petitioners would start. As per the counsel representing the petitioners, the University cannot decline the permission to extend the benefit of summer courses to the students with E and F grades in more than two subjects and restrict it only to those who have E & F Grades in two or less courses etc. on the basis of paragraph 14 of the ordinance (Annexure P-1). As already noted, this paragraph of the ordinance provides that the students can opt for maximum of two summer Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012 8 courses to clear the courses in which he/she has failed. The Grade obtained in repeated course/courses shall replace the original Grade and the CGPA/SGPA shall be calculated accordingly. The counsel would urge that there is no restriction made in regard to number of courses, as per this provision, which a student can be offered. As per the counsel, this paragraph only makes a provision that not more than two summer courses in number would not be made available to such student means the number of times the summer courses can be offered and nothing more.
Counsel for the University, however, has urged that this provision cannot be read in isolation, and has to operate keeping in view all the provisions made in the ordinance. The counsel has invited my attention to that portion of the ordinance, which regulates the grading system. Clause (c) of paragraph 7 of Regulation recites that if the student maintains CGPA 4.5 at the end of second semester of the session but fails in maximum of two courses during two semesters of that year, he/she shall be promoted to the next year. However, he/she will be required to clear these courses during the summer or subsequent semesters within the duration of maximum period specified to complete the degree. As per the counsel for the University, paragraph 14 of the ordinance relied upon by the petitioners cannot be read in isolation and read in the light of the provision, it would clearly imply that the student can opt for maximum of two summer term course to clear the deficiencies in which he or she has failed and he has also to maintain CGPA of 4.5 at the end of second semester when he/she has failed in maximum Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012 9 two courses during two semesters of that year, he/she can then be promoted. From this, it is urged that the student cannot be permitted to attend more than two courses in which he/she has failed.
I am not prepared to accept this line of submission pursued by the counsel for the petitioners. Read in isolation, paragraph 14 may give an indication that the students can attend two summer term courses as per this provision. Course is defined to mean Semester/Summer term course. It may appear to convey that the summer course can be offered in unlimited courses but this provision cannot be read in isolation. This has to work in overall mechanism of the system as provided in Annexure P-1. To be eligible for promotion to 3rd semester, the student not only has to maintain CGPA of 4.5 but has to pass all the courses except two or less than two courses for which he would then be able to make up the deficiencies either by attending the summer courses or the normal semester. If the student has failed in more than two courses and still have been able to maintain 4.5 CGPA, then he would not be eligible for being promoted to 3rd semester as is clear from the reading of the provisions.
I find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the University when he states that to provide opportunity to make up deficiencies through summer courses cannot be claimed as right. The University has to regulate the summer courses depending upon the availability of infrastructure etc. I may hasten to add here that it is not a case set up by the University, that if the eligible students, are available then they still can be denied opportunity to make up Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012 10 deficiencies during summer course.
All the petitioners who fall within the parameters of these provisions, only are entitled to some relief for attending the summer courses. All those petitioners in the present petition, who have failed in more than two courses cannot be considered entitled to the benefit of attending the summer course. Only those students are to be considered for attending the summer course who have maintained CGPA of 4.5 and have not failed in more than two courses.
Though the counsel for the petitioners has placed before me a list of those students, who would be, thus, eligible to be promoted to 3rd semester as they have been able to maintain CGPA of 4.5 or above and have two or less courses for re-appear but I would leave it to the University to re-check the cases of all such petitioners, who are eligible as per the provisions made in Credit Based Evaluation System and whosoever becomes eligible and entitled under the criteria as noted above, may be so apprised and may also be afforded an opportunity of doing summer courses alongwith the resultant consequences of promotion to 3rd semester.
At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners submits that there are some students, who have been extended the concession of summer courses though they had failed in more than two courses and now are left with two courses to clear. As a one time measure, they may also be considered eligible and offered summer course etc. to clear the examination of these courses as one time measure. This course has been adopted in equity as the University itself had offered Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012 11 the summer courses to such petitioners and, thus, they have come to fall within the permissible parameters as per the system. This course is being adopted as one time measure and would not be available to declare the result of summer courses and then to see the eligibility of the petitioners. This order will have no effect for being followed in future and the provisions of ordinance will have operation as are interpreted above. The result of only up to two summer courses shall be taken into consideration and declared and then necessary consequences may be allowed to follow.
At this stage, the counsel for the respondent/University has also pointed out that as per the requirement, minor test of all the courses has held in August and the petitioners would not be entitled or eligible to assessment in these minor subjects. This is also, accordingly, clarified that the petitioners would be entitled to those result of minor courses which is yet to be held and not in those minor subjects test for which have already been held for their promotion to 3rd semester.
It is pointed out by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that all the students, who are now not eligible for promotion to 3rd semester, did not approach the institutions for admission to 1st semester which they were otherwise would be eligible and entitled to. If any of the petitioners wish to seek admission in 1st semester, it is expected from the University that it will not confront them with delay if any and atleast permit them to join 1st semester. If there is need for taking any such permission from the Syndicate, the same shall, accordingly, be moved but the students Civil Writ Petition No. 12765 of 2012 12 will not be made to suffer on account of any such technicality.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
September 10, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE