Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Akash Mangal Son Of Rajendra Mangal vs Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture ... on 4 February, 2023
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14719/2022
Akash Mangal Son Of Rajendra Mangal, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident of Mishra Gali, Mohalla Wazirpur, Gangapur City, District
Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur
Through Its Chancellor.
2. Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur
Through Its Registrar.
3. The Controller Examination, Sri Karan Narendra
Agriculture University Jobner, Jaipur.
4. The College Of Agriculture, Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)
Through Its Principal.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vedant Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jag Mohan Saxena
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
04/02/2023
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer :
"a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the
respondents may kindly be directed to issue the result
of petitioner of the B.Sc. Part-IIIrd year (Hons.)
course with agriculture First Semester examination
and further the respondents may kindly be directed to
allow to petitioner to attend regular classes of B.SC.
Part-IIIrd year (Hons) Agriculture course;
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner, after passing Senior Secondary Examination, was
(Downloaded on 10/02/2023 at 12:21:45 AM)
(2 of 11) [CW-14719/2022]
granted admission in B.Sc. (Hons.) Course with the subject of
Agriculture and he was allotted the College of Agriculture, Lalsot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner passed all the semester of B.Sc. Part-I Year (Hons.)
course with agriculture and appeared in B.Sc. Part-II Year (Hons.)
course and was also declared successful in first semester
examination of the aforesaid course.
Learned counsel submitted that the respondents conducted
B.Sc. Part-II Year (Hons.) course and issued admission card to the
petitioner.
Learned counsel submitted that meanwhile, the petitioner
was also granted admission in B.Sc. Part-III Year (Hons.) and
necessary fee was deposited.
Learned counsel submitted that grievance of the petitioner is
that the petitioner, who was declared successful in B.Sc. Part-II
Year (Hons.) course with agriculture second semester examination
and declared successful, he, therefore, appeared in first semester
examination and got admission in B.Sc. Part -III Year (Hons.) but
the respondents had not issued result of B.Sc. Part-III Year
(Hons.) course with agriculture first semester examination without
any reason.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner submitted
several representations before the Authorities for issuance of
result of B.Sc. Part-III Year (Hons.) course with agriculture first
semester examination but no heed was paid and as such, the
respondents, without reasonable reason and cause, did not issue
result of B.Sc. Part-III Year (Hons.) course with agriculture first
(Downloaded on 10/02/2023 at 12:21:45 AM)
(3 of 11) [CW-14719/2022]
semester examination and as such, the petitioner has filed the
present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during
pendency of the writ petition, this Court passed an order on 16 th
December, 2022, whereby recording the contentions of learned
counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed the respondents to
inform this Court result of the petitioner, relating to Examination
of Part-III, Semester I & II.
Learned counsel submitted that this Court, on 23 rd January,
2023, after considering result of the petitioner produced before
this Court, found that the petitioner had secured 5.09 OGPA in
B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture Part-III Semester-I and 5.24 OGPA in
B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture Part-III Semester-II for the Academic
Session 2021-22.
Learned counsel submitted that since the respondents were
conducting examination of B.Sc. Part-IV Year (Hons.) Course
Semester-I and as such, the direction was given to learned
counsel to prepare the concise statement showing complete result
of the petitioner of Part-I and III of all the semesters.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has produced
statement showing complete result of the petitioner by preparing
a chart.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner, who had written Part-I Semester-I Examination, was
required to appear in total 17 papers, i.e., 10 theory and 7
practical papers, however, the petitioner passed 7 practical papers
and 7 theory papers and as such, three theory papers remained as
due paper and as such, the petitioner had secured 5.11 SGPA.
(Downloaded on 10/02/2023 at 12:21:45 AM)
(4 of 11) [CW-14719/2022]
Learned counsel further referred to a chart, wherein in Part-I
Semester-II, all the candidates were promoted to next higher
class on account of COVID-19 and OGPA of 5.11 was awarded to
the petitioner.
Learned counsel, while referring to result of Part-II
Semester-I, submitted that there were in all 9 theory and 8
practical paper and as such, there were three theory paper of
Part-I Semester-II examination that the petitioner had to write 20
papers in all, however, learned counsel submitted that said result
of the petitioner was cancelled on account of the petitioner being
found involved in use of unfair means in the examination.
Learned counsel further referred to result of Part-II
Semester-II Examination, where in all 20 papers were there, i.e.,
10 theory and 10 practical papers and the petitioner passed all the
papers by securing 3.88 OGPA.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner in Part-III
Semester-I had 18 papers, i.e., 9 theory and 9 practical papers
and had 10 due papers, however, the petitioner passed in the said
examination and got 5.09 OGPA.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner also appeared
in Part-III Semester-II examination and he appeared in total 20
papers, i.e., 10 theory and 10 practical papers and has been
passed by securing 5.24 OGPA.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submission,
has referred to Information Bulletin, which was issued by the
respondent-University.
Learned counsel submitted that for the Under-graduate
Programme B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture, complete procedure has
(Downloaded on 10/02/2023 at 12:21:45 AM)
(5 of 11) [CW-14719/2022]
been provided under Clause 1.4, relating to examination and as
per Clause 1.4.8, the under-graduate students, who fail to
maintain an OGPA of 4.0/10.00 at the end of the first academic
year or 4.5/10.00 at the end of second academic year &
4.75/10.00 at the end of III academic year, as the case may be,
will be dropped from the college by the respective Dean/Principal
automatically.
Learned counsel submitted that as per Clause 1.4.10, the
student, who is dropped at the end of second academic year is
given one more extra semester to improve OGPA on his/her
request to the concerned Dean/Principal and if the OGPA is still
not improved to the required level, the candidate is dropped from
the college.
Learned counsel submitted that the said Clause 1.4.10
further provides an opportunity to the candidate to file a mercy
petition before the Vice Chancellor and if one more extra semester
is granted to the candidate, the candidate has to maintain the
earlier OGPA at the end of the semester.
Learned counsel also submitted that the Information Booklet
also contains a Clause, relating to award of grades as per Clause
8.6 of Information Bulletin, if the student fails to be on good
academic standing at the end of a semester, he/she will be placed
on 'Scholastic Probation' in the semester following it and as such,
he/she is required to improve his/her OGPA by the end of
semester.
Learned counsel submitted that since the respondents
themselves permitted the petitioner to get admission in Part-III
Semester-I and as such, the respondents cannot be justified in
(Downloaded on 10/02/2023 at 12:21:45 AM)
(6 of 11) [CW-14719/2022]
withholding result of the petitioner and further, not taking the
petitioner as eligible to pursue the course in Part-III Semester-I
examination.
Learned counsel submitted that reply, filed by the
respondents, do not in any manner justify that the petitioner was
not liable to be given benefit of scholastic probation.
Learned counsel submitted that even if the respondent -
University had erroneously permitted the petitioner to get
admission in Part-III Semester-I examination, and on account of
the fault, committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be
made to suffer, as the petitioner has never made any
misrepresentation to the Authorities to get admission in the higher
class and to appear in the examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Chand
Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors. (AIR 1989 SC
823).
Learned counsel, while making submissions, submitted that
the real cause of not permitting the petitioner to write the
examination of Part-III Semester-I is according to the new clause,
which has been provided by the respondents in the Information
Bulletin, where as per Clause 1.5.1, the student is permitted to
only take maximum five backlog theory and practical paper along
with his/her regular papers in the semester.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that condition of
having maximum five backlog papers has wrongly been applied to
the petitioner, as the petitioner had got admission in the year
(Downloaded on 10/02/2023 at 12:21:45 AM)
(7 of 11) [CW-14719/2022]
2019-20 and his case was required to be governed without having
outer limit of passing the backlog papers.
Learned counsel submitted that the Information Bulletin,
which has been issued in the year 2022-23, could not have been
used by the respondents while dealing with the case of the
petitioner.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the grievance, raised by the petitioner in the present petition,
may not be entertained by this Court, as the Vice Chancellor of
the respondent - University had already constituted a Committee
to look into the grievance, raised by the petitioner before this
Court.
Learned counsel submitted that the Committee of Three
Members had gone into the entire issue and Members of the
Committee have recorded its findings that on one hand, the Dean
had issued the letter dated 11th April, 2022, dropping the
petitioner from the college, as per Clause 1.4.8 of the Information
Bulletin and on the same date, the Dean, after having
conversation with the Controller (Examination), issued another
order dated 11th April, 2022 promoting the petitioner to B.Sc. Part-
III of placing him on scholastic probation till declaration of his
result of B.Sc. Part-II Semester-I examination, in which, the
petitioner was to appear in due papers and as such, the said
permission to the petitioner was found against the rules.
Learned counsel submitted that the Committee Members also
considered the issue of having requisite OGPA by the candidate
and since the petitioner was required to have OGPA of 4.00 at the
end of the academic session and the petitioner had got only 3.88
(Downloaded on 10/02/2023 at 12:21:45 AM)
(8 of 11) [CW-14719/2022]
OGPA and as such, the action of Dean itself was found to be
contrary to the procedure, which was prescribed for considering
promotion of the student to the next higher class.
Learned counsel further submitted that the said report of the
Committee was duly considered by the Vice Chancellor and even
the warning was issued to the Dean concerned, who had wrongly
promoted the petitioner to Part-III Semester-I.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions,
submitted that even the Dean, who committed such
illegality/irregularity, was issued a charge sheet by the competent
authority.
Learned counsel submitted that on account of some mistake
being committed by the Dean of the faculty while promoting the
petitioner, no benefit can be conferred in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly, the
petitioner, who had appeared in Part-II Semester-I examination in
the year 2020-21, though, he appeared in 18+3 backlog papers,
i.e., total 21 papers, however, the result of said examination was
cancelled.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on
account of the petitioner's performance in Part-II Semester-II
examination, where he secured only 3.88 marks, which is less
than the requisite criteria prescribed, the petitioner could not have
been promoted to Part-III examination.
Learned counsel further submitted that appearance of the
petitioner in the examination and declaration of result before this
Court will not be giving any benefit to the petitioner, as he has to
(Downloaded on 10/02/2023 at 12:21:45 AM)
(9 of 11) [CW-14719/2022]
secure the minimum OGPA and SGPA, which is prescribed for the
particular semester.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that Clause 1.4.8 of the relevant Information
Bulletin of the respondent University prescribes passing
requirement and minimum grade for passing the course would be
four out of ten.
This Court finds that as per Clause 1.4.8, an under-graduate
has to maintain an OGPA of 4.0 at the end of first semester or 4.5
at the end of second academic session and 4.75 at the end of third
academic session, as the case may be.
This Court further finds that candidate, who is dropped at the
end of second academic session is given one more extra semester
to improve OGPA on his request to the concerned Dean.
This Court, in the facts of the present case, finds that the
petitioner was permitted to write his due papers of Part-I
Semester-I while appearing in Part-II Semester-I Examination and
till this juncture, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to
improve his CGPA, however, the entire result of the petitioner was
cancelled on account of him being found using some unfair means.
The very purpose of giving a chance to the student to improve his
OGPA was already availed by the petitioner, as per Clause 1.4.10
of the Information Bulletin.
This Court further finds that the petitioner appeared in Part-
II Semester-II and in the result, he was declared fail, as he
secured 3.588 OGPA.
(Downloaded on 10/02/2023 at 12:21:45 AM)
(10 of 11) [CW-14719/2022]
This Court finds that the respondents could not have
promoted the petitioner to Part-III Semester-I Examination, as the
petitioner did not have the requisite OGPA.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that
scholastic probation was rightly given by the Dean of the faculty
by promoting the petitioner to Part-III Semester-I, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-University seriously disputes
the said provision being made applicable to the Graduation
Courses, as counsel for the respondents submits that the said
provision is only for the purpose of Post Graduation Courses.
This Court finds that as far as the benefit of scholastic
probation is concerned, the petitioner could not have claimed such
benefit.
The submission of counsel for the petitioner that the
respondents are applying the new Information Bulletin on the
petitioner and as such, maximum five backlog papers, which have
been prescribed under the new regime, cannot be made applicable
to the petitioner, this Court finds that Information Bulletin for
2022-23 has been issued to guide the fresh candidates taking
admission in first academic year and as such, there is no
substance in the submission of counsel for the petitioner that on
account of new regulation, the petitioner has been treated
ineligible in Part-III Semester-I.
The submission of counsel for the petitioner that the Apex
Court in the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi (supra) has laid
down the law that if candidate is not at fault then he is not
supposed to suffer on account of the mistake, committed by the
University Authorities, suffice it to say by this Court that the Apex
(Downloaded on 10/02/2023 at 12:21:45 AM)
(11 of 11) [CW-14719/2022]
Court in the said case was considering that the candidate was
granted admission and further the minimum requirement of
admission was not overlooked by the Authorities while granting
admission and as such, candidates had appeared in paper
subsequently and in such factual background, the Apex Court
came to conclusion that the petitioner had not secured admission
in any illegal manner and as such, there was no suppression by
the candidate and accordingly, the benefit was extended to that
candidate by the Apex Court. This judgment is of no assistance to
counsel for the petitioner.
This Court finds that prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be accepted by this Court.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is eligible to pursue his course, as per the Rules and Regulations, which have been framed by the University, the University-Authorities will accordingly proceed further in the matter and they will not have any prejudice only on account of prayer of the petitioner not being granted by this Court in the present matter.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Preeti Asopa /10 (Downloaded on 10/02/2023 at 12:21:45 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)