Kanwaljeet Kaur & Anr. v. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar & Anr.

Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amrit Paul, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioners are students of 5 years Law Course of B.A. LL.B.(Hons.) They commenced the course in the year 2006. By now, both the petitioners have cleared all the subjects upto 6th semesters. While appearing in the 7th semester, the petitioners got re-appear in three subjects. As per the regulation, they were permitted to attend the 8th semester, which, both the petitioners have now passed. They, however, have not been admitted to 9th semester on the ground that they are yet to clear three subjects of the 7th semester. The Civil Writ Petition No.11318 of 2010 : 2 : petitioners have accordingly approached this court through the present writ petition seeking direction for the respondents to admit the petitioners to the 9th semester course. The main submission made by the counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners had not been given any chance to clear the re-appear of the 7th semester subjects till date and, thus, the action of the respondent-University in denying admission to them to the 9th semester would operate harshly and such a regulation would be arbitrary and discriminatory. They would accordingly plead that the petitioners be permitted to attend the classes in the 9th semester as otherwise they would lose a year. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2. It is stated that the petitioners are not eligible for admission to 9th semester as they have yet to clear three out of five papers of the 7th semester course. It is stated that the petitioners have passed 5 papers out of total 5 of the 8th semester and also all the papers of 5th and 6th semesters. They have, thus, only passed 7 papers out of the 10 papers of 7th and 8th semesters taken together and as per the Ordinance, they must have passed 8 papers of 7th and 8th semesters taken together for being promoted to 9th semester. In this regard, reference is made to Ordinance 6 (iv) of the Ordinances for the degree of B.A.LL.B. (Hons.School) (Five Years Integrated Course). The provision is reproduced as under:- “6. Promotion: A candidate will be promoted to: (i) Third semester if he/she clears 8 out of 10 papers of Civil Writ Petition No.11318 of 2010 : 3 : the first two semesters. (ii) Fifth semester provided he/she clears 8 out of 10 papers of 3rd and 4th semesters and all papers of the first and second semester. (iii) Seventh semester provided he/she clears 8 out of 10 papers of 5th and 6th semesters and all papers of the third and fourth semesters. (iv) Ninth semester provided he/she clears 8 papers of 7th and 8th semesters and all papers of the fifth and sixth semesters.” Reference is made to the case of A.P.Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another, (1986) 2 SCC 667 to emphasize that the court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulation made by the University itself. That would be destructive of the rule of law. It is accordingly stated that the petitioners are not eligible for promotion to the 9th semester and hence it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Mr.Navkiran Singh counsel appearing for the petitioners would persist in submitting that the petitioners are being deprived of their promotion because of no fault on their part and the regulation, which is being pressed into service to deny promotion, is arbitrary and illegal. Plea is that the examination of the 7th semester was held in December, 2009 and the result was declared on 8.1.2010. In the meantime, the petitioners have cleared the 8th semester examination of all the papers, but have not been given chance to clear the re- appear examination in the three subjects, in which they got re- Civil Writ Petition No.11318 of 2010 : 4 : appear in the 7th semester. As per the regulations applicable to the University, the petitioners were eligible for being promoted to the 9th semester if they had cleared 8 subjects out of the total 10 of 7th and 8th semesters. Unfortunately, the petitioners had cleared only 7 subjects and hence provisions of Ordinance 6(iv) would directly stare at them. The petitioners cannot plead that they were ignorant of this position. They were bound to be aware of the fact that they would not be promoted to 9th semester unless they had cleared 8 papers out of total 10 of the 7th and 8th semesters. This is the only manner in which the petitioners have advanced through the various semesters and could now get promoted. As per the regulation, a candidate could have gone to 3rd semester if he had cleared 8 papers out of the 10 in first two semesters. For promotion to 5th semester, students were to clear 8 out of the 10 papers of 3rd and 4th semesters and all papers of first and second semester. Similarly, for their promotion to 7th semester, the students were to clear 8 out of 10 papers of 5th and 6th semesters and all papers of the third and fourth semesters. Thus, it is not that something has suddenly come to confront the petitioners. The submission that the provision of the Ordinance is arbitrary on the ground that this is being made to operate without giving any chance to the petitioners to appear in the re-appear examination apparently is far-fetched. The petitioners cannot be given a chance to appear in the re-appear examination as per their own convenience. The re-appear examinations are required to be held as per the norms of the University and accordingly would be so Civil Writ Petition No.11318 of 2010 : 5 : held. Merely because the petitioners had not qualified for further promotion would not mean that the operation of the Ordinance is arbitrary or discriminatory. Somewhat similar argument was dealt with by Full Bench of this Court in Jasdeep Singh Vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, 2009(4) S.C.T. 213. The Court has held that eligibility to join next Higher Professional is separate and distinct from eligibility to appear in that Higher Professional Examination as these are two different conditions and stages of the course, independent of each other with no co-relation. Each provision apparently is providing for its own separate eligibility conditions, which a candidate is required to fulfill to avail access to such condition/stage. While dealing with the submission that by imposing the condition for a candidate to be eligible to appear in the next Higher Professional Examination, his attempt to clear the previous examination would stand extinguished, making the candidate to loose the period, the Full Bench has observed that these are grace attempts provided to the candidate to clear subjects where he has failed. It is also observed that allowing him to appear for the lower examination alongwith the Higher Professional Examination may create a absurd situation which would be anomalous inasmuch as one may clear the higher course without first clearing the lower professional course if scheme is made to work in the manner as pleaded. It is in this background held that a candidate can be allowed to appear in the Higher Professional Course only once he has passed all the subjects of the lower professional course. Such conditions laid down in the Ordinances have been held to serve a Civil Writ Petition No.11318 of 2010 : 6 : cardinal purpose to maintain standard of higher education. I see no infirmity in the regulation. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 26, 2010 ramesh ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE