Gujarat High Court
Paritosh Maghraj Calla vs Gujarat University, Ahmedabad And Anr. on 29 August, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1996GUJ188, (1996)1GLR640
ORDER R.A. Mehta, J.
1. The petitioner, a student of First Year B.Com. in the 2nd respondent-
H. L. College of Commerce, affiliated to the 1st respondent-Gujarat University, was not admitted to the First Year B.Com. University examination and his application form was withdrawn by the college as he did not pass the internal evaluation in five out of seven subjects. For internal (college) evaluation, the maximum marks are 30 in each subject and 70 marks are for the external (University) examination. The standard of passing is 36%. of marks obtainable. The petitioner obtained the following marks in each of the seven subjects out of 30.
Subjects Marks obtained out of 30
1. English 23
2. Commercial Communication-1 11
3. Economics-I 6
4. Accountancy 3
5. Business Organisation & Management-I 8
6. Principal Subject-Advance Accountancy 8
7. Subsidiary Subject-Computer Programming 8
2. This refusal to admit to the University examination is based on Regulation F.B. Com.I, 2(i) which provides that no candidate who has not passed in atleast half the number of heads for internal evaluation shall be admitted to the University examination concerned. The petitioner has challenged the validity of this Regulation.
3. Pending the petition, by an interim order, the petitioner was directed to be allowed to appear in the examination and he has appeared in the examination. Though the result is not declared, it is assumed that he has obtained the passing marks in the external examination.
4. Regulation R.Com.4 is relating to standard of passing First B.Com. examination. It provides that to pass the examination a candidate must obtain atleast 36% of the marks obtainable, separately in each subject in the University examination and in the internal assessment in each subject. The validity of this Regulation is also challenged by the petitioner on the ground that this requirement of passing the examination separately at internal assessment is irrational, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. The matter was heard by the Division Bench at length and both the learned Judges have taken great pains and given deep consideration to the contentions raised and the same are reflected in their dissenting judgments. One learned Judge (B. C. Patel, J.) has held that the Regulation is not ultra vires and he has passed an order dismissing the petition. Another learned Judge (K. R. Vyas, J.) of the Division Bench has held to the contrary and held that the Regulation is ultra vires and the petition is required to be allowed and directed that the mark obtained in the internal as well as external examination are required to be clubbed together and the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner accordingly.
6. On account of the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Division Bench, this matter is directed to be placed before me.
7. Both the sides have referred to large number of authorities to indicate the role of the Court in such matters. There is no difference of opinion between the two learned Judges as to any of the principles laid down in the judgments cited by both the sides. The learned Judge who has opined to allow the petition has summarized the decision as under:
"The sum and substance of the aforesaid decisions is that the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant in interfering with the matters relating to educational institutions imparting education since the decisions taken by the Academic Body are in the nature of policy decisions, unless they are found to be unreasonable or arbitrary. 1 am conscious of the fact that the Regulations in question have been incorporated in the Statute following the recommendations made by the expert committee having rich experience of actual day to day workings of the educational institutions.
It is equally true that this Court has absolutely limited power) to interfere with the internal working of an academic institution imparting education. Therefore, if the regulations in questions are held to be unreasonable, arbitrary or irrational, in that event only, a possible entry of this Court in the dispute pertaining to academic field is permissible."
Thus, the difference of opinion is only in applying these principles as to whether the Regulations for separate passing of internal examination are reasonable and rational or unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary.
8. A case which is very nearer to the facts of this case is a case decided by Bombay High Court in the case of Sophy Kelly v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 Bom 156. In that case, the question was whether it was competent for a school to detain a student by applying the test of passing at the preliminary (internal) examination prior to holding of the public (external) examination, the preliminary examination being held by the school itself and the High Court upheld the right of the school even as. an inherent common law right of every educational institution for the purpose of maintenance of academic standard and by conceding such powers to the educational institutions, the Regulations were held to have a salutary effect of keeping the students on their guard; a student would be prevented from prosecuting further studies and appearing at the examination if such student did not satisfy the school authorities in the matter of academic progress; in absence of such Regulations, a student may hot bother to have academic progress at all in 11th standard because there would be no fear of detention and that would have tendency to encourage disobedience amongst the students. This had been held to be valid and rational reason for maintenance of academic standards and continuous evaluation.
9. That exactly is the case of the University in the present case and it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that the grooming up and progressing of the students at the college is made by their assessment through internal evaluation and this system has been recognised all over the world being a good system of assessment of regular and consistent progress of students. In absence of such a system, it is observed by the academic authorities that the students may not study regularly and disregard altogether the internal college progress and may concentrate only at the end of the year at the annual University examination and the whole object of internal study round the year would be frustrated. If the continuous academic interest round the year is to be achieved, a student mustshow consistent and regular academic progress, and satisfactory result by way of internal evaluation.
10. In the aforesaid case of Sophy Kelly (AIR 1968 Bom 156) (supra), the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in para 61 had negatived the argument of arbitrariness and discrimination even when different schools had laid down different standards for. allowing to appear at the final examination and it was observed that "it appears to us very fortunate that we are not required to accept this argument which would require an uniform standard to be maintained in all second-ary schools." In the present case, the standard is not laid down by the college, but it has been laid down by the University by statutory Regulations Which apply uniformly to all the commerce colleges and they are bound by the same. There is no discrimination.
11. It must also be borne in mind that all colleges and schools are not of the same academic standard. There are some highly excellent institutions; some are average; some are below average. The students and parents may go to the best institution not with a view to just pass an examination with mediocre standard, but with a view to get the best education best environment and best academic prospects, possible only when academic standards are maintained throughout the year consistently and regularly. Internal evaluation is not only a reasonable and rational method, but highly desirable and necessary and that has been reflected everywhere. These standards and levels of excellence are not reached by mediocre.
12. One may have a different perception of the examination system altogether and mass production of degree holders. A great mind has said that "he did not allow his schooling to interfere with his education". But such questions, value judgments and policy decisions have to be left to academic authorities. So long as the examinations are there, one has to live with them (or, without them if one so chooses). The University cannot be faulted for having prescribed a standard for attemting to maintain or achieve some academic level. Our country does not have ranking of Universities, but the criteria or parameters of ranking are well-known. Some of the negative factors are liberality of examinations and results. The clamour for general options, mass promotions and such laxities directly and adversely affect not only the reputation and ranking of the education authority, but also the chances and career of the really bright students of such University. If any step is taken towards better educational method and standard, not only the Court should not come in the way, but must commend and encourage it. It necessarily means that those who fail to maintain such standard round the year may loose the very valuable year of the young career, just as they loose if they fail in the external evaluation. External evaluation has not been found to be the satisfactory method. It is not unknown that students mugging up selectively "with sure suggestions" manage to pass through such examination and forget the learning. The Education Commission, on Examination Reform, therefore, suggested that undue emphasis on the final examination be reduced as the sole determinant of the success, by introduction of frequent periodical assessments.
13. The reasons given by the learned Judge K. R. Vyas, J. do not appeal to me. The University has relied on the report of the Education Commission and the relevant paras 11.52, 11.53 and 11.54 have been referred to wherein the Commission had emphasised the need of internal examination of the students by the college. It was noticed that when the future of students is totally decided by one external examination at the end of the year, the students pay minimum attention to the teachers, do little independent study throughout most of the academic year and cram desperately for the final examination and the Education Commission recom-mended introduction of a system of internal and continuous evaluation by the teachers, themselves. The learned Judge Vyas, J. also noticed as under:--
"True, the Commission desired to abolish the set syllabus and external examinations based on them altogether and to replace them by a system of internal and continuous evaluation by the teachers."
The learned Judge has further held that the Academic Council has still not abolished the external examination. Paragraph 11.54 of the report of the Education Commission is strongly relied by the petitioner wherein the Commission had recommended as follows :--
"11.54. We realize, however, that external examinations will remain with us for a long time, especially in universities which have large numbers of affiliated colleges of very unequal standards. The main strategy here would be to attack the problem on two fronts; introduction of more, frequent, periodical assessment so that the undue emphasis on the final examination as the sole determinant of success is reduced; and reform of evaluation techniques. With regard to the first, a good deal can be gained if the performance of the student is assessed throughout the session in a suitable manner and if periodical tests are held in the middle and at the end of each term. A system of internal assessment should be introduced as a supplement to the external examination, based on such periodical evaluations. The results of these internal assessments should not be mechanically added to the external marks but kept separate and both should be shown side by side in the final certificate. Passes should be required separately in both and the divisions gained in them should be declared separately. Every year, a careful review should be made of the correlation between internal and external assessment separately for each institution. This should be taken as a point for classification of colleges and also related to grant-in-aid so that institutions which tend to over-assess their students persistently would stand to lose in status and finance. The regulations may also authorise the university to withdraw affiliation for persistent irresponsible assessment."
14. It appeard to the learned Judge Vyas, J. that the Education Commission had realised the need of continuance of external examination for a long time and internal assessment was recommended as a supple ment to the external examination and recommendation that the results of both should be shown side by side in the final certificate, was held to be a reason for allowing a student to appear at the external examination and the Regulation requiring detention and prevention from appearing in the external examination was held to be irrational. It is not possible to agree with this observation.
15. Both external and internal examinations have their owm merits and neither can be ignored. Both of them have to be respected and passed separately. If one fails in one, there is no point in allowing him to appear in the other. Para 11.54 of the Report clearly observes "Passes should be required separately in both." This observation is missed or not given effect to, when the direction is given to club the marks of external and internal examinations for the declaration of the result. It will have startling result conversely. A student who has scored very well in internal examination (say 25/30) can pass the examination, even if he scores merely 11 out of 70 at the external examination. Will it be rational or irrational? With respect to my learned brother Vyas, J., I am unable to agree with his opinion that "each paper is part and parcel of the same examination having 100 marks."
16. These are all matters of academic judgment. The value of internal evaluation has been accepted by the Education Commission and it is to be implemented in stages and by learning from experiences and different modalities may be adopted by different authorities depending on their academic judgment. Merely because the respondents authorities have laid down the policy in the statutory Regulations for preventing students with poor academic record in internal evaluation from appearing in the external examination cannot be said to be in any way irrational. When a student has failed to achieve a minimum passing standard in half of the subjects, it is not irrational to hold that he cannot be permitted to appear at the external examination and to go to the higher standard merely on the basis of the result of the external examination. Even para 11.54 relied upon by the petitioner also shows that even when both the results are shown side by side, passes should be required separately in both.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal Cambridge School v. Payal Gupta in Civil Appeal No. 5664 of 1994 decided on 21-8-1995 (reported in 1995 AIR SCW 3805). In that case, the school authority had prescribed a cut off level for continuance of further studies in higher class in the same school and the Supreme Court had held that the school could not have done so. In the present case, the college has done in pursuance of a statutory Regulation framed by the University. Moreover, in that case, there was Rule 138 which had provided that a student who had failed at the public examination could not be refused admission and, therefore, a person who had passed the examination from the same school could not be refused admission merely because he has passed with 45% marks (cut off line). Thisjudgment has no application to the facts of the present case.
18. Therefore, the requirement of passing and achieving the minimum standard in internal evaluation is reasonable and rational. I, therefore, agree with the opinion of the learned Judge B. C. Patel, J. and hold that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and Regulations 2(i) and 4 are rational and reasonable.
19. In the result, I would dismiss the petition with no order as to costs.
20. To be placed before the Division Bench for passing further appropriate orders in accordance with law.