Delhi District Court
Dr. Urvashi Arora vs Director on 25 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATVIR SINGH LAMBA,
ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
DELHI
CS No. 35752/16
In the matter of :-
Dr. Urvashi Arora,
W/o Sh. Kundan Kohli,
R/o DG-II, 128 A, SFS Flats,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018
....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Director,
Study Centre,
Research Foundation Education Centre (0708)
CSC -5, Sector-9,
Rohini, Delhi -1110085
2. Deputy Registrar (Exam-III),
SED, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU),
Maidan Garhi,
New Delhi-110068
......Defendants
Date of Institution : 20.03.2014
Date of order : 25.10.2018
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:-
1. Plaintiff enrolled herself with defendant no.1 for the Diploma Course in Creative Writing in English (DCE) in January 2007, vide enrollment no. 072137889. It is stated that CS No.35752/16 Page 1 of 21 as per page no. 11 of programme guide, students enrolled for DCE have to take two compulsory courses i.e. DCE-1 & DCE-
6. Out of the four courses DCE-2, DCE-3, DCE-4 and DCE-5, one has to take any three elective courses. It is further stated that in December 2007, plaintiff appeared in DCE-1, DCE-2, DCE-3 and DCE-4 examinations. Plaintiff submitted her project paper DCE-6 on 31.12.2010. It is alleged that when the plaintiff had not received any information about her result after one year, then she contacted the competent authorities of respondents and came to know that the result has been posted at the website of respondent University. It is further stated that as per the result, plaintiff got Grade D in DCE-4 and status was shown as "Not Completed", which is in violation of point 3.8 at page no. 13 of programme guide. It is alleged that as per evaluation chart provided at page no. 13 of programme guide, Grade E is unsatisfactory and scores less than 35% marks and the student will be failed. The Grade-D is satisfactory and scores 35% and more but less than 45% marks. It is stated CS No.35752/16 Page 2 of 21 that plaintiff has also filed a representation dated 25.07.13, but has not received any response of same from the defendants.
Then, the plaintiff has filed RTI before defendants, upon which she has been informed that she is failed. Hence, plaintiff had filed the present suit.
2. The suit has been contested by the defendant no. 2. In its written statement, the defendant has taken the preliminary objections interalia that the plaintiff has concealed the true facts. It is contended that IGNOU was established in 1985 and since then continuously striven to build an inclusive knowledge in the society. It is contended that IGNOU is a statutory body and is discharging its statutory functions including the supply of study material. It is admitted that plaintiff was a student of Diploma Course in Creative Writing in English (DCE) in January 2007 with defendant no.1. It is contended that the result of the exam was sent to the plaintiff and she had received the same on 05.05.08. It is further contended that CS No.35752/16 Page 3 of 21 plaintiff has scored less than 45% in the DCE-4, which is equivalent to Grade D. However, as per the prospectus and rules of the respondent, a student is required to secure above 45% in a course to pass and plaintiff had secured less than 45% in one paper and hence, she had failed in her abovesaid course. All the averments were denied in toto. It is prayed that the suit be dismissed.
3. Replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, in which she denied all the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated all the averments made in the suit. It is prayed by the plaintiff that her suit be decreed.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, my Ld. Predecessor framed the following issues on 18.03.2015:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for ? OPP.
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP. CS No.35752/16 Page 4 of 21
3) Relief.
5. The parties were called upon to lead their respective evidence on the abovesaid issues.
The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit i.e Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. confirmation of admission cum fee receipt dated 23.12.2006 as Ex. PW1/1, prospectus/ programme guide as Ex. PW1/2, Grade Card as Ex. PW1/3, representation dated 25.07.13 as Ex. PW1/4, application under RTI as Ex. PW1/5 and reply dated 17.12.2013 as Ex. PW1/6. She was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defendant and thereafter, PE was closed.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Mahender Singh Rawat, Section Officer, Student Evaluation Division (SED) from IGNOU was examined on behalf of the defendant no. 2 as DW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. Prospectus DCE Programme by CS No.35752/16 Page 5 of 21 IGNOU as Ex. DW1/1, Programme Guide of the DCE Education programme as Ex. DW1/2, computerized copy of result card as Ex. DW1/3. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of plaintiff. Thereafter, DE was closed and the case was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties at bar and have carefully gone through the record. My findings on the issues are as under :-
Issue Nos. 1 & 2
8. Both the issues are inter-connected hence, common discussion shall suffice. The burden of proving the abovesaid issues was on the plaintiff. In order to prove the abovesaid issues in her favour, plaintiff has to prove that she has fulfilled all the criteria required for qualifying the exam in terms of prospectus of respondent and had successfully completed the diploma course in Creative Writing in English (DCE) in the year CS No.35752/16 Page 6 of 21 2007, vide enrollment no. 072137889. Plaintiff is also supposed to prove that the result dated 17/12/2013 is against the norms and rules of the respondent University regarding the criteria set for qualifying the abovesaid exams, so that direction should be issued to the respondent for grant of abovesaid diploma in her favour.
In order to prove both the issues, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 and reiterated that she was enrolled with the defendant no. 1 for diploma course in Creative Writing in English in January, 2007 vide enrollment no. 072137889. She appeared in terminal examination in December, 2007 and received the result by post on 05/05/2008. The result was as follows :-
DCE - 1 : B
DCE - 2 : B
DCE - 3 : C
DCE - 4 : D
CS No.35752/16 Page 7 of 21
Further, plaintiff had submitted her project writing paper DCE - 6 on 31/12/2010. Thereafter, the IGNOU authorities has informed her that they had posted the result on the website of the university. The Grade Card of petitioner is exhibited as Ex. PW1/3 and is as follows :-
COURSE CODE TERM AND STATUS
THEORY
DCE 1 B COMPLETED
DCE 2 B COMPLETED
DCE 3 C COMPLETED
DCE 4 D NOT COMPLETED
DCE 6 A COMPLETED
The grievance of the plaintiff is that the status of paper DCE 4 was shown as "NOT COMPLETED" and same is in violation of the rules and regulations of the prospectus of the defendant no. 2 which was provided to her at the time of admission in the abovesaid course. Plaintiff deposed that as per the evaluation chart of Ex. PW1/2 at page no. 13 of CS No.35752/16 Page 8 of 21 programme guide:-
(a) The student who scores E Grade in any paper, his / her result will be treated as UNSATISFACTORY, and had scored less than 35% Marks, and will be declared as FAIL in the said paper; and
(b) The student who scores D Grade in any paper, his / her result will be treated as SATISFACTORY, and had scored 35% and more but less than 45% in Marks.
Plaintiff further deposed that the marking scheme was explained in the abovesaid manner that, which means that while a student have a D grade in certain assignments / exams, his/her overall score must be C or 45% to qualify for the Diploma and in his/her project you must score 45% or C grade.
Plaintiff further deposed that she had received D Grade in exam DCE 4, meaning thereby, she scored 35% or more and she is not failed in the exam DCE 4. However, the defendants had rashly and negligently failed in fulfilling their statutory duty by declaring the plaintiff as pass in the abovesaid paper. It is CS No.35752/16 Page 9 of 21 further deposed that the plaintiff has obtained B, B, C & D Grade in the exams DCE 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively, which means that as per Evaluation Chart provided at point no. 3.8, at Page No. 13 of the programme guide, she scored at least, 55%, 55%, 45% and 35% in papers mentioned above, which further means that the plaintiff had scored at least 190 out of 400 (47.5%) in abovesaid four papers and same are more than what is required to qualify for the aforesaid Diploma course. Plaintiff further deposed that she scored grade A in DCE-6 (at least 70%), which further raises her overall score to 58.75%. Plaintiff further deposed that the abovesaid Diploma is to be considered as qualified, even if one gets a D grade in certain papers provided one has obtained more than 45% as overall score and at least a C grade or 45% in the Project. The plaintiff has claimed on the basis of the above facts and circumstances that she had qualified the abovesaid course as per the criteria of the defendant no. 2, however her representation for same i.e. Ex. PW1/4 was not considered by the respondent. CS No.35752/16 Page 10 of 21
On the other hand, the defendant no. 2 has taken the stand that there was no negligence on the part of the university. DW1 - Mahinder Singh Rawat, Section Office, Student Evaluation Division, IGNOU, New Delhi deposed on behalf of defendant no. 2 that the plaintiff has no cause of action and has no locus to file the present suit. DW1 admits that the plaintiff was enrolled for the course of diploma in Creative Writing in English in January 2007 and the result of the exam was sent to her by post, duly received on 05/05/2008 wherein, she was declared pass in three subjects and in DCE 4, she secuted less than 45% and is equivalent to D Grade. DW1 further deposed that as per the prospectus Ex. DW1/1 and programme guide Ex. DW1/2, it is the rule that all students are required to secure more than 45% marks in each course to pass the diploma or programme. It is further deposed that as per the result card of the plaintiff Ex. DW1/3, she secured D Grade i.e. less than 45% marks in one exam DCE 4 hence, she failed to qualify in the said subject. Accordingly, she is failed to complete the diploma CS No.35752/16 Page 11 of 21 programme. The defendant has contended that the IGNOU has no duty to declare the plaintiff as passed in the abovesaid diploma programme. DW1 denied that the passing number of the abovesaid course is only 35% or more. It is further deposed that the relaxation of passing marks being more than 35% is only applicable on the assignments and not in the course. Therefore, for each course, the overall passing marks is unambiguously 45% or more. It is further deposed that the result was sent to the plaintiff on 05/05/2008 and the present suit is filed after the lapse of three years of the alleged cause of action hence, the suit is barred by limitation also.
In the cross-examination, the plaintiff deposed that program guide Ex. PW1/2 was issued by the defendant no. 1 at the time of her admission but explained that the said form was brought by her cousin namely Suruchi. Plaintiff denied of having knowledge that the program guide in respect of a course is one and the same for all the years or it is different. Plaintiff admits that she took admission in the abovesaid course CS No.35752/16 Page 12 of 21 in the year 2006 and filled up the form in the year 2006 but do not remember in which month she took the admission. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present plaint as well as evidence by way of affidavit, the plaintiff has taken a stand that she was enrolled for the abovesaid course in January 2007. However, in her cross-examination, she has deposed that the admission was taken in the year 2006. Perusal of the programme guide Ex. PW1/2 does not reveal mentioning of the year of the course as 2006 or 2007. Instead, it bears the mentioning of December, 2005. Meaning thereby, the programme guide Ex. PW1/2 is not pertaining to the year of the alleged admission of the plaintiff with defendants for the diploma in Creative Writing in English. In her cross- examination, the abovesaid factum is admitted by the plaintiff but she explained that programme guide Ex. PW1/2 was given to her at the time of admission. It is further pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff herself has not purchased the admission form from the defendant for admission in the diploma course in CS No.35752/16 Page 13 of 21 Creative Writing in English, instead same was admittedly purchase by her cousin sister namely Suruchi. Plaintiff admitted in her cross-examination that she received her first Grade Card on 05/05/2008 by post. Plaintiff further admits that to clear the diploma course, as per programme guide, the overall score must be C Grade. At the same time, plaintiff further admitted that the respondent university has notified the grade D to her. Plaintiff further admits that there was no continuous evaluation i.e. the assignment to complete the abovesaid course.
The contention raised by the defendant university is that programme guide Ex. PW1/2 was not supplied to the plaintiff and she cannot take the benefit of the programme guide of the year 2005 for a admission to the abovesaid course in the year 2006 or 2007. The common prospectus Ex. DW1/1 and programme guide Ex. DW1/2 relied upon by the defendant are pertaining to the year 2014-15 and July, 2013 respectively. Therefore, the abovesaid prospectus and programme guide are CS No.35752/16 Page 14 of 21 also not pertaining to the year of the admission of the plaintiff in the diploma course in Creative Writing in English. Further, the contention raised by the defendant that present suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, does not hold water as Grade Card status of the plaintiff pertaining to abovesaid course is dated 10.07.2012, wherein, the plaintiff has shown successfully completed the four exams except the exam DCE 4 and the present suit was filed on 20.03.2014.
The reason for not completing the exam DCE 4 is shown as the D Grade in the said exam. The contentions raised by the defendant university is that the plaintiff was required to secure more than 45% in each course in order to pass the abovesaid diploma course in Creative Writing in English.
As per the document Ex. PW1/2 on its page no. 13, para no. 3.8 is mentioned as "3.8 Evaluation
i) Continuous evaluation - 30%
ii) Term-end examination - 70% CS No.35752/16 Page 15 of 21 Continuous evaluation is related to the assignments that each student has to submit for being eligible to appear for the term-end examination. Every student has not complete and submit assignments before s/he can take the Term End Exam. The evaluation of the students in continuous evaluation and term-end examination will be based on both marks and grading system. The grade system is as follows :
Letter Grade Evaluation Marks Percentage in Marks A Excellent 5 70% and more B Very Good 4 55% and more but less than 70% C Good 3 45% and more but less than 55% D Satisfactory 2 35% and more but less than 45% E Unsatisfactory 1 less than 35% 1st Division 60% and more CS No.35752/16 Page 16 of 21 2nd Division 50% to 59.9% Pass 45% to 49.9% Fail less than 35% In order to complete the course successfully the student must score pass marks in all assignments and terms end exams. This means that while you have D grade in certain assignments/exams, your overall score must be C or 45% to qualify for the diploma. Please note that in your Projects you must score 45% or C grade. Examinations are held once a year - in the month of December and Study Centres are invariably the Examination Centres."
The abovesaid criteria of programme guide is pertaining to the year 2005. It is admitted case of the plaintiff that she has not enrolled herself in the abovesaid course in the year 2005. Even otherwise, as per the abovesaid criteria, a student has to score pass marks in all assignments and terms end exams. More so, the pass marks are described as 45% to 49.9 %. Further, if one has 'D' grade in certain exam/ assignment, then CS No.35752/16 Page 17 of 21 the overall score must be of 'C' grade. However, the status of plaintiff in one exam i.e DCE 4 is "no completed". Meaning thereby, she has not scored pass marks in the said exam. As per the abovesaid criteria, the marks as per grade 'D' are 35 % and more but less than 45 %. Further, as per the grade card of the petitioner i.e Ex. PW1/3 as well as Ex.DW1/3 does not show that the overall score of the plaintiff as 'C' grade. Meaning thereby, the plaintiff has not qualified the exam as per rules of programme guide 2015.
As per the document Ex. DW1/2 on its page no. 8, para no. 1.11 is mentioned as "1.11 Evaluation System The system of evaluation in IGNOU is also different from that of conventional universities.
IGNOU has a three tier system of evaluation.
1. Self-assessment exercises within each unit of study.
2. Continuous evaluation mainly through assignments which are either tutor-marked or computer marked, practical CS No.35752/16 Page 18 of 21 assignments and seminar/workshops.
3. The term-end examination/project work.
The evaluation of learners depends upon various instructional activities undertaken by them. A learner has to write assignment responses compulsorily before taking term- end examination from time to time to complete an academic programme. A learner has to send tutor marked assignment responses to the concerned Coordinator of the Study Centre to which s/he is attached. The tutor-marked assignments (TMA) are 30% weightage and the term-end exams are given 70% weightage.
IGNOU uses the system of "Grading for evaluating learners" achievements (assignment responses, project work etc.) on a five-point scale using letter grade A, B, C, D, E. Three notional correlates of the letter grades are as follows. Letter Grade Qualitative Level Point Grade A Excellent 5 CS No.35752/16 Page 19 of 21 B Very Good 4 C Good 3 D Satisfactory 2 E Unsatisfactory 1 In the overall computation, s/he must have a 'C' grade in each course to claim a diploma / degree.
Even as per the abovesaid criteria, a student of the respondent university must have 'C' grade in each course to claim a diploma/ degree. However, in the present case that plaintiff has failed to prove on record that she has scored 'C' grade in her exam result in the abovesaid course. Further, the calculation by the plaintiff of the overall score in the abovesaid course to the extent of 58.75% is of no use as the plaintiff has not passed one of her exam i.e DCE 4 as per the norms of the University. The plaintiff has raised the contention that the abovesaid prospectus Ex. DW1/1 pertains to the academic session 2014-2015 and the programme guide Ex. DW1/2 pertains to the year 2013. However, her course is to be CS No.35752/16 Page 20 of 21 governed by the rules pertaining to the year 2007. Interestingly, the plaintiff herself relied upon the programme guide pertaining to the year 2005. The plaintiff herself has not brought on record the rules of the respondent University pertaining to the year 2007.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the abovesaid discussions, the plaintiff is failed to discharge her burden of proof. Hence, the abovesaid issue no. 1 & 2 are decided against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
9. For the reasons assigned herein above, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bears their own costs.
Decree sheet be prepared after the plaintiff pays the req- uisite court fees, if any.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court SATVIR Digitally signed
by SATVIR
SINGH SINGH LAMBA
on 25th day of October, 2018 LAMBA
Date: 2018.10.26
16:57:03 +0530
(SATVIR SINGH LAMBA)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC (NORTH),
ROHINI COURT, DELHI
CS No.35752/16 Page 21 of 21