Kerala High Court
Gurudarshan M vs National Institute Of Technology
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 15TH POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 31954 of 2016
PETITIONER:
GURUDARSHAN M.,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT:
611, BLOCK B 2, SARASWATHI,
BDA GYANABHARATHI FLAT COMPLEX,
VOLAGERAHALLI, KENGERI,
BANGALORE-560060.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.ANAND
SRI.MANU.G.RAJAN
RESPONDENT:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
CALICUT, N.I.T CAMPUS (P.O.),
CALICUT-673 603,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.01.2018,
THE COURT ON 05.01.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
WP(C).No. 31954 of 2016 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE
ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS FOR B.TECH
(APPLICABLE FOR 2006 ADMISSIONS ONWARDS)
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED GRADE CARD
ISSUED BY THE NIT DATED 03.06.2010
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY
THE NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LIMITED
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY M/S
CANARA BANK INVITING APPLICATIONS TO THE POST
OF TECHNICAL FIELD OFFICER
P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 24.12.2012 BEFORE THE NIT
P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.02.2013
ISSUED BY THE NIT
P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE 2012
REGULATIONS
P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE
MINUTES OF THE 50TH MEETING OF THE SENATE HELD
ON 11.03.2015
P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 28.04.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA IN WP NO.11978 OF 2015 (EDN)
P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 04.03.2016
ISSUED BY NIT MEGHALAYA.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
R1(A) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF RULE 19.3 OF THE ORDAANCES &
REGULATIONS FOR B.TECH PROGRAMME APPLICABLE FOR 2012 ONWARDS
R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE
R1(C) TRUE COPY OF TH ECERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCAITON WHILE AWARDING
DIPLOMA
R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION SHEET DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE
http://www.icbse.com/cgpa/
TRUE COPY
EL P.S. TO JUDGE
P.V.ASHA, J.
W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2016
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2018
JUDGMENT
Petitioner who passed B.Tech Degree examination from the National Institute of Technology, Calicut in the year 2006, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 letter and is seeking a direction to the respondents to convert Cumulative Grade-Point Average ("CGPA" for short) into percentage without reducing the marks by 5%.
2. Petitioner completed B.Tech Degree course in Electrical and Electronics Engineering under the respondent in the year 2006. At the time when he joined the course, the system of awarding marks was governed by Ext.P1 Regulations, according to which the academic performance of a student was being assessed in accordance with the Semester Grade Point Average ("SGPA" for short) and the CGPA respectively. Evaluation was being done in hundred marks for each subject. While so the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007 ("the NIT Act" for short) was enacted declaring the respondent as an institution of national importance. Under section 28 of the NIT Act, the Senate of every Institute is empowered to frame ordinances which shall provide for the W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2016 2 admission of students, conduct of examinations, awarding of degree/diploma etc. in the Institute. On completion of B.Tech Degree course in the year 2010, petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 consolidated grade card in which the CGPA secured by him was indicated as 6.81.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the employers within India are seeking the percentage of marks instead of the grades and he was unable to furnish the same as no certificate of conversion was being given from the Institute. Subsequently when they started issuing the certificates of conversion, the formula adopted by the respondent was detrimental to him.
4. Petitioner submits that he had submitted application for appointment in National Fertilizers Ltd. By Ext.P3 notification the candidates were required to furnish the equivalent percentage of marks. Similarly it was necessary to produce certificates in proof of securing a minimum of 60% marks or an equivalent grade for selection for appointment pursuant to Ext.P4 to the post of Technical Field Officer in Canara Bank also. Similar was the case when the Karnataka Public Service Commission invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Electrical Inspector in the office of Chief Electrical Inspector to the Government of Karnataka. Petitioner submits that in certain notifications the candidates were directed to produce the Grade Certificate along with the percentage W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2016 3 conversion formula/factor followed in their respective Institute/University. In the above circumstances, petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation before the respondent requesting for conversion of CGPA into percentage of marks. As per Ext.P6 letter, the respondent informed the petitioner that there was no such formula for conversion of CGPA into percentage as per the approved curriculum offered to the petitioner. Even though, the petitioner challenged Ext.P6 before the High Court of Karnataka he had to withdraw the writ petition to pursue his remedies before the appropriate forum.
5. Petitioner submits that the respondent has subsequently adopted regulations which are applicable from 2012 admissions, according to which CGPA could be converted to percentage of marks by reducing 0.5 and thereafter by multiplying the same by 10. That conversion formula was adopted for the students of old batches also, as per Ext.P8 minutes of the 50th meeting of the Senate. According to the petitioner, conversion after reduction of 0.5 and multiplication thereafter is unscientific and illegal. Petitioner claims that when CGPA of 6.81 is awarded to him on a 10 point scale, he is entitled to get it converted to 68.1%. By adopting Ext.P8 conversion, his marks got reduced to 63.1 causing very serious injustice to him. Petitioner has produced Ext.P10 conversion table adopted by the NIT at Meghalaya in which percentage of marks is W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2016 4 arrived at by multiplying the grade by 10. Therefore according to the petitioner different NITs cannot adopt different methods. He therefore seeks a direction to the respondent to issue a conversion certificate converting his grade by applying a multiplication factor of
10.
6. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating the following: the method of conversion was decided by the Senate in accordance with the provisions contained in the NIT Act, as per Exts.R1(a) and R1(b). Under proviso to Section 15 of the NIT Act the Senate of the respective NIT shall have the control and general regulation and be responsible for the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination in the Institute. For each program run by the Institute, there are ordinances and regulations duly approved by Senate. It is stated that the ordinance and regulations pertaining to the B.Tech program is handed over to each and every candidate on the very 1st day of the instructional class called as orientation program. Rule 21.4 of Ext.P1 rules enumerates the details on grading and Rule 24 deals with the calculation of grade-point average, in respect of 2006 admission. It is stated that the evaluation of the student is based on the marks obtained in the sessional examinations, project work and end semester examinations, based on a relative grading pattern and not on the absolute grading depending on the total performance of the student W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2016 5 including end semester examination. In the relative grading pattern the grade is awarded based on the scoring pattern of total students in the class. Students are categorised into different grades depending on the normal distribution of the scores obtained by them in a particular course and the grading policy derived by the Departmental Class Committee. Therefore it is stated that the percentage of a student who scored the highest grade viz. "S" grade does not mean that he has scored hundred percent marks as in the case of absolute grading. In absolute grading, marks are directly converted into percentage which is conventionally followed even in the State Board Examinations of Kerala. Under the relative system of grading, the performance of the students in an examination is made based on the performance in mid-term tests; the marks for the performance of students in submitting the assignments, projects, seminars etc. are also evaluated; the score is combined with the end semester examinations; based on performance of the students in a class, grades from S to F are decided; if the highest performing students in a class might have scored marks in the range of 60 to 70 marks, the class committee depending on the relative performance of the students finally decides the grading policy and may give the top grade of S to this class of students. It is stated that a student who scored S grade, cannot be termed as if he has scored 100% marks. A student who scored 90 also will get S W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2016 6 and the students scored hundred also will get the same grade S.
7. It is stated that the respondent Institute is evaluating students in accordance with Rule 19.3 of Ext.R1 (a) -the Ordinances and Regulations for the B.Tech program applicable for 2012 onwards. While the NIT Act empowers the Senate of every NIT to frame academic rules, method of evaluation etc, it does not insist that the method of grading in every Institute should be on identical criteria. According to the respondent grade cannot be converted into percentage in normal circumstances as it is based on a relative grading pattern. The Senate of the respondent resolved to adopt a formula which will result in finding the middle range. The class in which the marks of students are between 90-100 when it convert to percentage with the formula (CGPA - 0.5) X 10 it will be the middle of the range viz. 95. Since many PSUs were seeking the percentage of marks as a mandatory information, the Senate decided the issue and derived the formula as (CGPA - 0.5) X 10, as per the following principle.
"In the Institute first-class is awarded to a student who scores 6.5 CGPA only. The 1st class in universities following the absolute grading pattern is given to the students who scored 60 percentage of marks. Likewise distinction is given to a student who scored 75% of marks in absolute grading, whereas in relative grading being followed in the Institute, the requirement is CGPA of 8.0".W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2016 7
8. The Senate has decided to give the formula (CGPA - 0.5) X 10 under the relative grading pattern based on the pattern of awarding different classes as 1st class and 1st class with distinction, as per Ext.P7, for admission from the year 2012 onwards. It was later made applicable to all admissions based on the demands of students of old batches also in the 50th meeting of the Senate as per Ext.R1(b) minutes. According to the respondent, awarding of grades on evaluation after the semester examinations are perfectly in line with the decisions of the Senate, which is the competent authority as per the provisions contained in NIT Act, 2007 and therefore the petitioner cannot insist that the CGPA should be multiplied by 10. Relying on Ext.R1(c) it is stated that the Government of Kerala State Board of Technical Education is also giving the conversion of grade into percentage applying a multiplication factor of 9.5 only. Thus according to the respondent the contention of the petitioner is unsustainable.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner made available the certificates of conversion issued by the NIT, Rourkela in which the conversion formula adopted is "Mark in percentage = 10*CGPA-5". In the NIT, Silchar the conversion is made by multiplication of 10. NI , Thiruchirapaally adopting the multiplication factor of 9.25 for the students who passed out in 2010 and a multiplication factor of 10 for all other batches of students. Pointing out these, petitioner W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2016 8 claims that 6.81 CGPA awarded to him is also liable to be converted to 68.1%.
10. Having considered the contentions on either side, it is clear from the provisions contained in the NIT Act that each of the institutes coming under the NIT Act are conferred with the power to conduct courses in branches of Engineering, hold examinations and award Degrees, Diplomas, Distinctions, titles, etc. Section 6 of the NIT Act read as follows:
6. Powers of Institutes.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every Institute shall exercise the following powers and perform the following duties, namely:--
(a) to provide for instructions and research in such branches of engineering and technology, management, education, sciences and arts, as the Institute may think fit, and for the advancement of learning and dissemination of knowledge in such branches;
(b) to hold examinations and grant degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions or titles;
(c) to confer honorary degrees or other distinctions;
11. Under section 8 of the Act, teaching in each of the Institute is to be conducted in accordance with the Statutes and Ordinances made in that behalf. Under Section 15 of the NIT Act read with the the Ordinance and Regulations, Ext.P7, the Senate is the authority to decide on matters relating to examination, evaluation, awarding of marks etc. Section 15 of the Act reads as follows:
"15. Functions of Senate.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, the Senate of an Institute shall have the control and general regulation, and be responsible for the maintenance of standards of W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2016 9 instruction, education and examination in the Institute and shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Statutes."
12. The Senate is constituted by members of academic experts imparting instructions in the institute, educationists of repute in various fields. Thus method of conversion is determined by such a body consisting of academic experts. There is no provision in the Act or any rules which insists that a uniform procedure has to be adopted for conversion of grade into marks. On the other hand, the respective NITs are given the freedom to take decision on its own with respect to the areas imparting courses of engineering, examination, awarding of Degrees, distinctions, titles, etc. That being so, the method adopted by the respondent cannot be said to be illegal.
13. The decision in Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) are taken by the Senate in accordance with the regulations/ordinances. This court, does not have the expertise to deal with such matters and therefore cannot under Article 226 interfere with it and substitute such decisions. It is settled law that unless there is clear violation of statutory rules or regulations, courts shall under Article 226 keep themselves aloof in academic matters, which are in the exclusive domain of experts in the field. (See University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde, (2013) 10 SCC 519 (para W.P.(C) No.31954 of 2016 10
31), University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao: AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University: (2001) 8 SCC 546 and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University:
(2008) 9 SCC 284). When the decision is taken by the Senate which is the authority competent under the Act, nobody can usurp those powers. The respondent cannot also be directed to adopt the procedure followed in other NITs, as long as there is no provision of law to adopt the very same method in all NITs.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the action of the respondent or to issue any direction to alter the method of conversion in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly writ petition is dismissed .
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDGE rkc