Punjab-Haryana High Court
Birjit Saha vs Punjab Engineering College University ... on 13 October, 2011
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CWP No. 15958 of 2010 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 15958 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.10.2011
Birjit Saha ...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Engineering College University of Technology & others
..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Navdeep P.K.Singh, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
SURYA KANT, J.(Oral)
The petitioner seeks quashing of memo dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure P-5) whereby his B.E. Programme has been terminated on the plea that he earned 39 credit points with CGPA 4.65 only and has not completed the first year course within the stipulated period. (2) The petitioner got admission in the Bachelor of Engineering Course in the Punjab Engineering College, University of Technology, Chandigarh in July, 2008 in the academic session 2008-
09. The petitioner appeared in the first semester examination held in November, 2008 and was able to clear only two out of five papers. He appeared in the 2nd Semester examination held in May, 2009 and CWP No. 15958 of 2010 [2] could clear three out of five papers. In this manner, the petitioner was able to pass five out of ten papers in the Ist and 2nd semesters leaving backlog of five papers. One of the papers in which the petitioner failed in the Ist semester examination was Mathematics-I. He again appeared in the said paper in the 2nd semester examination but failed. The petitioner made third attempt in the next semester examination and this time also he failed. In the fourth attempt made in July, 2010, the petitioner was able to pass the said paper. It was only after passing Mathematics-I paper that the petitioner appeared in the Mathematic- II examination held in December, 2010 and secured 31 marks. Notwithstanding the marks he obtained, the respondent University declared the petitioner 'failed' in the said examination on the plea that he was required to pass the Mathematics-I paper within maximum two years of his admission i.e. upto July, 2010. Consequently, the impugned order was passed.
(3) The petitioner's contention on the other hand is that he appeared in the Mathematic-II paper within the permissible chances under the Regulations framed by the respondent university and having got 31 marks he is entitled to be credited 'E' (instead of 'F') which would mean that he could reappear in the said examination. On this premise, it is urged that the petitioner could not be declared 'fail' in Mathematics-II examination.
(4) In order to understand the genesis of a controversy like this, the Courts would normally rely upon the provisions contained in the Regulations framed by a University/College. Unfortunately, the Regulations in the instant case are loaded with so much hyper- CWP No. 15958 of 2010 [3] technicalities that instead of guiding towards a pragmatic solution, the relevant provisions add to the confusion. I say so for the reason that the academic session in the respondent-University admittedly begins in the month of July of every year and is divided into the following three parts:-
"FIRST SEMESTER: Normally from the fourth week of July to the last week of November.
SECOND SEMESTER: Normally from the second week of January to the third week of May.
THIRD SEMESTER: Normally from the last week of May to the middle of July."
(5) Regulation 8.4 of the Regulations dealing with the 'Termination of the Programme' is to the following effect:-
" 8.4 Termination of the programme:-
For the purpose of continuation/termination of the B.E. Programme, the performance of a student after completion of every academic session (including summer term) will be considered.
A student's programme may be terminated by the Senate on any of the following grounds and he/she will have to leave the institute (without degree);
a) If a student fails to earn at least 24 credits after spending one year in the Institute (including summer term).
b) If a student fails to complete all course work requirements (including non-credit courses) of the first two semesters of the programme with a CGPA> 5.0 in a maximum period of two years spent in the institute (including summer terms).
c) If a student fails to earn at least 70 credits pertaining to the first four semesters of his/her programme in a maximum period of three years spent in the institute (including summer terms).
d) xx xx xx
CWP No. 15958 of 2010 [4]
e) xx xx xx
f) xx xx xx
g) xx xx xx
h) xx xx xx (emphasis supplied)."
(6) Similarly, Grading System is defined under clause 6.3 of
the Regulations and it reads as follows:-
6.3 Grading System
The performance of the student in a course is reported in terms of broadband grades. The following letter grades are used:-
Letter Grade Performance Grade Points A Excellent 10 B Very Good 8 C Satisfactory 6 D Marginal 4 E Deficient/reappear 0 F Failing 0 I Incomplete 0 N Not Eligible S Satisfactory (for zero credit courses only X Unsatisfactory (for zero credit courses only).
The grade E may be awarded to a student only if the student's performance is within 5% of the cut-off performance for the last passing Grade-D. The E-Grade will be available to the students in only the first and second semester courses. The reappear examination will be scheduled by the Academic Section.
A student's overall academic performance within a given semester or in all the courses completed is measured by two grade point averages.....(emphasis supplied)." CWP No. 15958 of 2010 [5] (7) If one reads clause 8.4(b) in isolation, it is apparent that "a student is required to complete the entire course work of the first two semesters of the programme with a CGPA-5.0 in a maximum period of two years spent in the institute including summer terms". It necessarily means that the petitioner was required to qualify all the 10 papers of Ist and 2nd semesters within a period of two years of his admission i.e. from July, 2008 to July, 2010. Nevertheless, the respondent University at its own allowed the petitioner to re-appear in Mathematics-I paper in December, 2010 when he passed the same. The petitioner could appear in Mathematics-II paper thereafter only. If one reads the 'Grading System', it gives an impression that on getting 31 marks in Mathematics-II paper, the petitioner qualified for 'E' Grade which entitled him to seek re-appear in the next semester examination. It is only after filing of this writ petition and with the intervention of this Court that the respondent university has amended clause 6.3 reproduced above clarifying that 'E' Grade will not be available to the students in the summer terms.
(8) Besides the fact that the clarification issued by the respondent university during the pendency of this writ petition tilts in favour of the petitioner and it will relate back to situation when confusion arose, there is another intervening factor too which requires consideration. This Court vide an order dated 15.07.2011 directed the respondent university to permit the petitioner to appear in the forthcoming examination provisionally, subject to the decision of the writ petition. The petitioner was accordingly permitted to reappear in the Mathematic Paper-II examination held on 26.07.2011. While CWP No. 15958 of 2010 [6] counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has qualified in the re-appear examination, learned counsel for the respondent University has no such instructions.
(9) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that there was some lack of clarity in the existing provisions which have since been clarified during the pendency of the writ petition and owing to the fact that the petitioner has been permitted to reappear in the examination under the orders of this Court, I allow this writ petition and quash the impugned memo dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure P-5) and direct the respondent university to declare the result of the examination in which the petitioner re-appeared on 26.07.2011. Necessary consequences shall also follow.
Dasti.
13.10.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE