Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Pawan Kumar vs V.C.University Of Jammu And Ors. on 30 August, 2013
Author: Bansi Lal Bhat
Bench: Bansi Lal Bhat
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
OWP No. 627/2011
Date of Order: 30.08.2013
Pawan Kumar. V. V. C. University of Jammu & ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bansi Lal Bhat,
Bhat, Judge
Appearing Counsel:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. M. Koul, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. W. S. Nargal, Advocate.
i) Whether approved for reporting
in Press/Media : Yes/No
ii) Whether to be reported
in Digest/Journal : Yes/No
Feeling aggrieved of respondents' refusal to re-evaluate
his answer scripts in subjects of Accounting and Financial
Management Course No. CS-401 and Translator Design
Course No. CS-403 of IVth Semester Examination of Masters
in Computer Applications (MCA) Course, petitioner has filed
writ petition on hand claiming following relief(s):
(i) "Certiorari for quashing 1-(B) in II Statute governing
the re-evaluation of answer scripts, Chapter XLI i.e. Master's
Degree and other Post Graduation Diploma Courses taught in
the University excluding MBA, MCA LLM as illegal,
arbitrary, unreasonable apparently discriminatory and thus,
violative to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) Certiorari for quashing communication No.
Nodal/Officer/Exams/11/268 dated 20.04.2011 pursuant to
which the legal notice dated 16.03.2011 issued by the counsel
for the petitioner to the respondents came to be rejected on the
ground that there is no statutory provision/statute governing the
re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the MCA Course of the
petitioner.
(iii) Mandamus commanding the respondents to reevaluate
the answer scripts of the petitioner by utilizing the services of a
reputed academician/teacher from any other University other
than University of Jammu in MCA i.e. CS-401 and CS-403
(2) OWP No. 627/2011
alongwith the paper CS 304 which the petitioner believes has
not been appropriately evaluated.
(iv) Mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the
petitioner to have been admitted to 3rd Semester of MCA
Course on the basis of PGDCA (Post Graduate Diploma
Course in Computer Application) passed by the petitioner in
accordance with Rule 45 of the University of Jammu Calendar
2010 and his merit be assessed on the basis of his performance
in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Semesters of MCA Course.
(v)... any other alternate/additional relief in favour of the
petitioner in order to meet the ends of justice."
Facts germane to the disposal of petition on hand may be
adverted to in a concise form. Petitioner, an employee of University of Jammu and having Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications (PGDCA) to his credit, as claimed by him, was granted admission to MCA Course as an in-service candidate of University of Jammu. He was admitted to Ist Semester. Petitioner claims to have filed application with respondents praying that he be directly admitted to IIIrd Semester of MCA Course. However, respondents did not admit the petitioner to IIIrd Semester of MCA Course. Petitioner appeared in examinations after studying all the six semesters. He appeared in IVth Semester examination held in the month of July 2010. He was shown to have not passed in the subjects CS-401 and CS-403. After obtaining Answer Scripts of these papers from the respondents under RTI Act, he found that the mathematical questions had not been evaluated properly. Petitioner issued a legal notice to respondents for re-evaluation of his Answer Scripts which was turned down vide communication dated 20.04.2011 on the ground that there was no statute for re-evaluation of Answer Scripts of the papers sought by the petitioner. Petitioner assails the provision excluding the facility of re-evaluation in MCA Course as being (3) OWP No. 627/2011 discriminatory in nature particularly for the reason that re- evaluation facility could not be excluded for MCA Course when such facility has been made available in many other courses.
It is contended on behalf of petitioner that there is no logic in discriminating MCA Course insofar as facility of re- evaluation is concerned; that such exclusion is not based on an intelligible differentia; that there is no nexus between such exclusion and any object sought to be achieved by it and that re-evaluation aims at securing transparency in the examination system and its denial cannot achieve any fruitful purpose.
Respondents filed objections denying the allegations in the petition and pleaded that admission in IIIrd Semester on the basis of relevant merit of applicants in PGDCA of University of Jammu was limited to two candidates who were employees of the University for two years experience as instructor/programmer in the filed of computer applications; that this rule position under statute 45 was modified in 1994 limiting the number to one candidate. However, the modified statute did not provide for direct entry to IIIrd Semester. It is further pleaded that since MCA Course is a professional course and after completion of this course candidates have to serve in a Private Sector in cut-throat competition providing no chance for re-evaluation of their marks, this course stands excluded from the provisions for re-evaluation of Answer Sheets in the University statutes. It is further pleaded that Provision-1(B) of Chapter XLI of the University Statutes provides that re- evaluation is permissible in all the courses except in MBA, MCA and LLM. Prescribing of academic standards falls (4) OWP No. 627/2011 exclusively within the domain of special bodies like Syndicate, University Council etc. Thus, it is within the domain of experts/academicians to frame statutes in a particular manner in order to maintain quality and excellence of education in professional/academic courses. It is contended that petitioner, being aware that re-evaluation facility was not available in MCA Course, took admission being aware of the Rule position. He is estopped under law to question the vires of statutes.
Heard and considered.
Admittedly petitioner, an employee of University of Jammu holding PGDCA, was admitted to appear in MCA Examination as a private candidate under the modified Rules incorporated in statute 13(A)(iii)(d) and being aware of the Rule position and having appeared in all six semester examinations, he cannot be heard to say that he was entitled to be directly admitted to IIIrd Semester, the principle of estoppel standing as a bar. In so far as refusal on the part of respondents to re-evaluate subjects of Accounting and Financial Management Course No. CS-401 and Translator Design Course No. CS-403 is concerned, justification thereof has to be tested on the touchstone of object sought to be achieved by exclusion of MCA Course from process of re-evaluation. Provision 1(B) of Chapter XLI of the University statutes provides for re-evaluation in all the courses except MBA, MCA and LLM. The exclusion, on the face of it, is limited to professional courses, academic standards whereof have been prescribed by the University Council and the Syndicate. Justification for such exclusion is advanced on the basis of (5) OWP No. 627/2011 opinion of experts/academicians maintaining quality and excellence of education in professional courses falling within its domain. The University statutes are said to have been framed after detailed deliberations by different academic bodies and finally approved by the competent authority. Power to amend the University statutes vests in the University Council under Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is not denied that the relevant statutes have been framed in conformity with the procedure prescribed under Section 41 of the Act. Exclusion of re-evaluation of Answer Scripts in MCA Course is based on the opinion of experts prescribing rigorous standards of teaching/learning process in the program and the peculiar manner in which the Answer Scripts of the course are to be evaluated leaving hardly any scope for re-evaluation.
It is well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation but not reasonable classification for purposes of legislation and that in order to pass the test of permissible classification these two conditions must be fulfilled, namely:
i) The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia;
ii) Such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute.
There is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who assails it to show that there has been a clear violation of the constitutional principles. These principles have been enunciated in a catena of Rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court (6) OWP No. 627/2011 including the cases reported in A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 404 and A.I.R. 1958 SC 731. Exclusion of MCA Course from process of re- evaluation has to be appreciated in the backdrop of these constitutional principles.
In (2001) 9 SCC 157 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that prescribing of the academic standards falls exclusively in the domain of special bodies like Senate, Board of Governers and Syndicate etc. The Court would normally not interfere with such prescribed standards and especially when they are intended to improve the academic standards in their respective institutes. The scope of judicial review in such matters would be very limited.
Again in (2004) 13 SCC 383 the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the position of law earlier stated in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman Bihar Public Service Commission that in absence of Rules providing for re-evaluation of Answer Books, no direction for re-evaluation can be issued. It was further held that in the larger public interest such a direction must be avoided.
Applying the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts of the case on hand, it is manifestly clear that MCA Course, being a professional course in respect whereof a high standard of excellence has been provided by experts of University Council to equip the candidates to meet the cut throat competition in Private/Corporate Sector, has consciously been excluded from the purview of re-evaluation of Answer Scripts with further object of avoiding complications arising out of such re-evaluation in a highly technical subject. Moreso, it may (7) OWP No. 627/2011 not be possible to dismiss the respondents' plea offhand that re-evaluation in highly technical subjects like MCA Course would be a very difficult exercise.
Viewed thus, it cannot be said that relevant statute is arbitrary and discriminatory in character and, thus, hit by Article 14 of Constitution of India. The object sought to be achieved by classifying MCA Course as a technical course wherein re-evaluation of Answer Scripts would not be permitted, such classification bearing nexus with the object of making computer professionals of immaculate standard available to the Private/Corporate Sector, the statute satisfies the test of constitutionality that the same is based on a intelligible differentia to achieve the object aforesaid. The statutes are, accordingly, held intra-vires.
The result is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
(Bansi Lal Bhat) Judge Jammu:
Sunita. 30.08.2013