JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner was admitted in the B.Tech. Civil Engineering Course of the Aligarh Muslim University in the Session 2001-02 in Zakir Hussain College of Engineering and Technology. Me successfully completed his first year examination, which consisted of two semesters. The case of the petitioner is that in the second year, because of illness, he could not earn the requisite number of credits, as was required under the University Ordinances. However, after having appeared in the two semester examinations of the second year, he was provisionally allowed to join the third year B.Tech. classes in the fifth semester. The results of the second year examination were published on 16.9.2003 and admit card was issued to the petitioner for the third year course. By order dated 10.11.2003, the petitioner was served with an order issued by respondent No. 1, holding that the petitioner and two others, namely, Aijaz Hussain Rizvi and Naved Agha, who were provisionally allowed to attend classes of 3rd /4th year B.Tech course, were not eligible for promotion and their names were being removed from the roll of the faculty. The petitioner challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. 140 of 2004. While dismissing the writ petition the petitioner was granted liberty to file an application in terms of Ordinance IX before the authority concerned and it was further directed that in case if any such application was made and the same was found to be maintainable in terms of Ordinance IX, then such application be entertained and considered and appropriate orders be passed thereon within six weeks from the receipt of the same.
2. The petitioner then moved such an application on 18.3.2004 for considering his case for withdrawal for two semesters. When the application of the petitioner was not decided within six weeks, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No. 1711 of 2004, in which notices were issued to the opposite parties i.e. the Vice Chancellor of the University and Dean/Principal of the College. However, thereafter by order dated 28.8.2004, the Academic Council of the University passed an order holding that the petitioner was not eligible to be granted promotion as he had earned only 14.5 credits in the second year and after adding 36 credits which he had earned in the first year, the total credits earned by him were only 50.5, as against the requirement of minimum 65 credits in both the years. It was also held that the provisions of Clause IX of the relevant Ordinance giving permission to students to temporarily withdraw for two semesters cannot be applied to his case as he does not fulfill the conditions prescribed for the same. Earlier also an order is said to have been passed on 1.7.2004 by the Dean of the Faculty rejecting his application which, according to the petitioner, was passed in back date only after contempt notice had been issued by this Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 1.7.2004 passed by the Dean of the Faculty and the order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the Academic Council, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Mrs. Sunita Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents at length and have perused the record. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
4. After the filing of the application by the petitioner on 18.3.2004 and before a decision could be taken by the Academic Council on 28.8.2004, on 31st July, 2004 relevant Clause IX of Chapter XXXIV (E) of the Ordinances (Academic) for B.Tech Degree Programme had been amended. After the amendment, a student could be given permission to temporarily withdraw for two semesters in the entire period of 7 years course, irrespective of whether such student had earned requisite number of credits or not. The only issue now before me would thus be that whether the case of the petitioner would be covered under the amended provisions of Clause IX of the said Ordinance or not.
5. The application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Academic Council on 28.8.2004 merely stating that he does not fulfill the conditions prescribed for being covered under Clause IX of the Ordinance. No specific reasons for the same have been given nor has it been stated that while deciding the application, whether they have applied the amended provisions of Clause IX or its unamended provisions. Mrs. Sunita Agrawal has, however, stated at the Bar that the case of the petitioner was covered under the unamended provisions of Clause IX of the Ordinance. It is not disputed that in case if the application of the petitioner was considered under the amended provisions of Clause IX of the Ordinance, then he would have been entitled to withdraw for two semesters in his entire tenure of fourteen consecutive semesters.
6. The submission of the petitioner is that it is settled law that any beneficial piece of legislation ought to be interpreted in favour of one to whom such benefit is to be given. In the column specifying justification for amending the relevant clause it has been mentioned that such provision for withdrawal for two semesters in the entire tenure has been made as no second chance is given to weaker students or those who have fallen ill during examination period and have thus earned less than the required credits for continuation of the studies. In the case of S.K. Verma v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal AIR 1981 S.C. 422, the Apex Court has held that "welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation."
7. In the case of Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare AIR 1989 S.C. 1247 the Apex Court has held that:
Every law that takes away or impairs rights vested agreeably to existing laws is retrospective and is generally unjust and may be oppressive. But laws made justly and for the benefit of individuals and the community as a whole, as in this case, may relate to a time antecedent to their commencement. The presumption against retrospectivity may in such cases be rebutted by necessary implications from the language employed in the statute. It cannot be said to be an invariable rule that a statute could not be retrospective unless so expressed in the very terms of the section which had to be construed.
8. The petitioner, in the present case, is only claiming benefit of his case to be considered under the amended provisions of Clause IX of the Ordinance whereby some benefit has been given to his class of students. The specific case of the petitioner is that because of illness, he could not earn the requisite credits in the second year. Admittedly, he had passed first year examination and had earned 36 credits in that year (for which the minimum requirement was only 30 credits). The University has itself acknowledged this fact that in certain extraordinary circumstances, where a student may have fallen ill or otherwise, there may be some good reason for his not having earned the requisite number of credits in a particular semester or in a year and thus it itself found it necessary to amend Clause IX of the Ordinance so as to give option to such students to withdraw from two semesters in their entire course. The said Ordinance is beneficial in nature and I see no reason why the benefit of the same should not be given to the petitioner, whose case was admittedly decided by the Academic Council after the amendment had been incorporated in the said Ordinance.
9.The submission of Mrs. Agrawal that the application of the petitioner had been decided by the Dean of the Faculty on 1.7.2004, prior to the amendment in the said Clause IX, does not have much force as the final decision was only taken on 28.8.2004 by the Academic Council, when admittedly the Ordinance had already been amended. Even otherwise, considering the fact that the said order was passed on 1.7.2004 only after contempt notice had been issued by the High Court, the submission of the petitioner has force that the same had been issued in back date only to show before the contempt Court that compliance of the order passed in the writ petition had been made. Even otherwise, if the Dean of the Faculty was itself the competent authority, it cannot be understood as to why the matter was thereafter placed before the Academic Council. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to place before me any provision under which the Dean of the Faculty was the final authority to take such decision. As such, the final authority for taking such a decision on the application of the petitioner would be the Academic Council. Mrs. Agrawal then submitted that since as a rule, all the academic matters are required to be placed before the Academic Council in the next meeting of the council and hence this matter was, in due course, placed before the Academic Council in its meeting on 28.8.2004, only further substantiates that the final authority to take such a decision in the matter was only the Academic Council
10. In such view of the matter, when the final decision was taken by the Academic Council on 28.8.2004, after the amendment having been brought in Clause IX of the Ordinances, in my view, the rejection of the application of the petitioner citing the reason that the petitioner does not fulfill the conditions for grant of permission to temporary withdraw for two semesters does not appear to be justified, as the application of the petitioner dated 18.3.2004 ought to have been considered under the amended provisions of Clause IX of the Ordinance.
11. Even otherwise, equity is also in favour of the petitioner as in the cases of the other two students whose names had been removed from the roll of the faculty alongwith the petitioner by the same order, they have been given the benefit of the amended Ordinance and have been permitted to continue their studies in the college, which benefit should have also been given to the petitioner.
12. In view of the above, the order dated 1.7.2004 passed by the Dean of the Faculty, as well as the order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the Academic Council, passed in the case of the petitioner, are both quashed. The Academic Council of the University is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter, after considering the case of the petitioner under the amended provisions of Clause IX of Chapter XXXIV (E) of Ordinance (Academic) for B.Tech. Degree Programme. Such decision may be taken by the Academic Council as expeditiously as possible, within two months and preferably in the next meeting of the Academic Council of the University.
13. This writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs.