Hon'ble Mr. Aditya Nath Mittal, J.
1. We have heard Shri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Neeraj Tiwari appears for U.P. Technical University, Lucknow and its Registrar-respondent nos. 2 & 3.
2. Ms. Renu Pal-appellant in this Special Appeal was admitted to B.B.S. Engineering College, Allahabad in Session 2004-05 and appeared in first year examination (1st Semester & 2nd Semester). She was promoted to second year along with carry over papers. She appeared in second year mains examination (3rd Semester & 4th Semester) in Session 2005-06 along with carry over papers. She passed carry over papers of first year and failed in second year examination as she could not clear six out of ten papers. She was required to repeat second year examination in Session 2006-07. Her result was directed to be declared in which she could not clear the three papers. To complete the second year examination she was required to appear in 4th semester examination of session 2006-07. She again failed in the second year examination 2006-07 and was required to repeat the second year examination. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 56954 of 2007 in which after noticing the aforesaid facts the Court did not find the case to be fit for interference and dismissed it on 7.4.2008.
3. In this Special Appeal, which was thrice dismissed in default and was restored; an order was passed on 17.5.2011 to declare her result of 3rd paper of Vth semester and to permit her to provisionally appear in the 6th semester examination to commence on 23.5.2011.
4. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the 3rd year examination (5th, and 6th semester). She appeared in three papers of 5th Semester and five papers of 6th semester. She cleared only three theory papers of 5th Semester and five papers of 6th Semester. For passing the 3rd year examination, she was required to pass second year examination and thereafter also obtain marks in sectional examination in which she has been shown absent as she did not participate in any sectional examination. In this way she was again declared to have failed in 3rd year examination. The Court by order dated 25.11.2011 after hearing the parties directed the respondents to allow her to appear in 7th Semester examination.
5. The G.B. Technical University, Lucknow filed a Civil Appeal No. 3567-3568 of 2012, against the orders dated 23.9.2011 and 25.11.2011, in which following orders were passed by the Supreme Court on 16.4.2012, as follows:-
"Leave granted.
We have heard Mr. Vishwajit Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Renu Pal-respondent no. 1 in person.
It is not necessary to indicate the facts of the case as the Special Appeal is pending before the Allahabad High Court. Suffice it to say that the materials placed before us do indicate that the respondent No.1-Ms. Renu Pal has not yet cleared 3rd Semester, 4th Semester, 5th Semester and 6th Semester.
In this view of the matter, the Division Bench was not justified in directing the present appellants to declare the result of 7th Semester pertaining to the respondent No.1- Ms. Renu Pal.
Accordingly, the direction of the Division Bench to the present appellants to declare the result of 7th Semester pertaining to respondent No.1- Ms. Renue Pal is set-aside.
Civil Appeals stand disposed of as above. No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(R.M. Lodha, J.) sd/-
(H.L. Gokhare, J.)"
6. It is submitted by Shri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the petitioner cleared two out of five papers in the 1st Semester Examination in December, 2004. In the 2nd Semester the examination held in May, 2005, the petitioner passed two carry over papers of the 1st Semester. In the 2nd Semester, she passed three out of five papers and was allowed to carry two papers but that she was declared to have failed in both the papers. In the year 2004-05 she was declared as ex-student. The petitioner applied for scrutiny of the two carry over papers and one paper of the 1st Semester. On 19.9.2005, she was declared to have failed in the examinations. On an application given by the petitioner in the office of the Examination Controller, her result for carry over papers was disclosed on the application, in which she was declared to have passed in one out of two carry over papers (TIT 201) with 38 marks. She was given the result in November end and was given admission in the 3rd Semester when all the classes of the 2nd year were complete.
7. It is submitted that she was allowed to appear in the semester examinations in the 2nd year with two carry over papers of the 1st Semester. The result of the 3rd Semester was declared and in the 4th Semester she was admitted to the College in January, 2006 and was allowed to attend all the classes. She appeared in the 4th Semester. As per result for 3rd and 4th Semester declared in first week of August in which though she was given marks for all papers in the 4th Semester, the status was shown to be incomplete. In the carry over papers of the 2nd Semester she was declared to be passed in one paper and was declared to be failed in other paper. When her father requested for declaring her result, she was assured on 28.8.2006 and 12.9.2006 that her result will be declared on the web site. When the result was displayed, her result of TME-101 with 31 marks was shown to be incomplete.
8. It is submitted that when the petitioner approached the Examination Controller of the University, the records of theory (sessional) and practical (sessional) subjects were summoned, but that the College sent the same sessional marks which were earlier sent on 28.9.2006. In December, 2006 the 5th Semester was going to be held in which she was not allowed to appear and was asked that she will have to appear as ex-student. The petitioner appeared in 3rd Semester Examination of 2006, as ex-student and once again her result was not declared in February, 2007.
9. In February, 2007 she was again given assurance that whenever her records will be received, she will be permitted to appear in the examination. On 21.11.2006 she was assured that her record will be sent within three days. The records were, however, not sent and that on 22.2.2007, she was told that records are not sent to the College. On 16.4.2007 she was told by the Examination Department that in TAS-201 carry over papers, she had secured 46 marks and that her results will be corrected and displayed on the web site but her corrected results were not shown on the Internet.
10. It is stated that in November, 2007 the petitioner filed a writ petition in which once again the same sessional marks was shown without calling for the record, and she was shown to have failed in the 3rd and 4th Semesters in six papers. The writ petition was dismissed in 2008. In Special Appeal orders were passed on 16.9.2008 to allow her benefit of the new rules. Once again the petitioner visited the Examination Controller's office and thereafter the Vice Chancellor's office and was told that now the matters will be considered in accordance with the orders by the Court. She will not be allowed to appear in the 3rd Semester and may appear in the carry over paper no.3 in which she had failed.
10. Shri Anil Tiwari submits that in the year 2008-09 special examinations were held for 3rd and 4th Semester in which she should have been allowed to appear. The High Court passed orders on 23.12.2010 for allowing her to appear in 5th Semester in three papers and in which she was shown to have passed in all the three papers. In the 6th Semester she has passed four papers and has failed in one paper. He submits that the petitioner has been pursuing the course for last seven years. Inspite of the facts that she had passed 1st and 2nd Semesters and had appeared in 3rd and 4th Semester, she was not allowed to complete the carry over papers and to sit in the 5th Semester. It is submitted by him that since the petitioner is a lady candidate and has been pursuing the studies for last seven years, she should be allowed to complete the course.
11. Shri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had joined the B. Tech four year course in the year 2004-05. Under Ordinance 4.3 of Chapter-IV of the U.P. Technical University, maximum duration within which a candidate is required to complete the B. Tech Course is seven years. The relaxation, if any, is permitted under Ordinance 23, only by the Academic Council for Bachelor of Technology Programmes to be approved by the Executive Council. Ordinances 4.3 and Ordinance 23 are quoted:-
"4.3 The maximum time allowed for a candidate admitted in 1st/IIIrd Semester (for diploma holders) for completing the B. Tec Course shall be 7 (Seven)/5 (Five) years respectively, failing which he/she shall not be allowed to continue for his/her B. Tec. Degree.
x x x x x x
23. The Academic Council shall have the power to relax any provision provided in the ordinance in any specific matter/situation subject to the approval of Executive Council of the University & such decision (s) shall be reported to the Chancellor of the University."
12. We find it unfortunate that the petitioner pursuing her course of B. Tech since 2004-05, has not been able to complete it. She approached the Court time and again for declaring her results. She has by this time completed only the 1st and 2nd Semester. Although she has appeared in the 5th and 6th Semester, she could not complete all the papers of 3rd and 4th Semester. In the process seven years have passed, and thus under the Ordinances of the University she cannot be permitted to continue and to complete the course.
13. We also find it unfortunate that even after spending seven years of time, the University, instead of giving her a helping hand, has pleaded that she has to undertake the studies of the 2nd year, 3rd year, and 4th year all over again and to appear in all the six semesters, during which the syllabus has changed twice.
14. We could have considered to grant her another opportunity to appear in the 7th Semester and to complete the course by allowing her to complete the remaining papers of 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Semesters but that taking into account the Ordinances of the University, and the orders passed by the Apex Court, we do not find it possible to allow her more time to complete the Court.
15. The maximum time allowed for the candidate to complete the B. Tech course has since expired. Now it is only the Academic Council with the approval of the Executive Council and intimation to Hon'ble Chancellor, the petitioner can be allowed to complete the course.
16. The State has all along encouraged and adopted measures to allow the girls to take up technical courses and has offered various concessions and facilities to remove gender bias. A quota is prescribed for girl students for admissions and all efforts are made so that the girls are able to stand up in life and achieve independence.
17. In the present case, we find that the petitioner has been pursuing her studies and is eager to complete the course. For the reasons, which do not require to be gone into in detail, and for which we find the University to be partly responsible she has not been able to complete the course in seven years. She is still willing to pursue her studies, and to complete the course, if the University permits and treats her case as an exception.
18. The petitioner comes from a humble background. She passed 1st and 2nd Semesters examinations and has also completed carry over papers. In the 3rd and 4th Semesters, she has still a few papers to clear. She also appeared in 5th and 6th Semesters.
19. The Rules are made for maintaining discipline, removing arbitrariness and for doing justice. In the present case, the seven years' embargo may be useful, to allow the students, who are unable to cope up with the studies to leave the College. In our opinion, the petitioner does not fall in such a category of students. She has not been a failure throughout. She may not have equal aptitude and competence but there are some students, who need help to be able to complete the course. The College should not shut the doors for such students. The petitioner is virtually fighting against the odds, and deserves sympathy.
20. We find that her struggle is not only for completing the course but also a fight for her dignity.
21. There is no disciplinary complaint against her. She is struggling to complete her course and has been appearing in person pleading to the Court that she may be allowed to complete her studies and proved to be useful to her family.
22. We find her cause to be fully justified, and will appreciate, if the University considers her representation sympathetically and allows her to complete the course.
23. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with directions that in case the petitioner makes a representation to the Academic Council of the University, the same shall be considered sympathetically and very expeditiously, and if possible in the next meeting of the Academic Council. We make it clear that we have given these directions in the special facts and circumstances of the case. These directions will not be treated as a precedent, to be followed in other cases.
Dt.08.5.2012 RKP/