IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.24491/2017 (EDN RES) BETWEEN SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR.K S/O KANTILAL BAGRECHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT, USN: 1BM10CS040, #6, 20TH CROSS, KILARI ROAD, M.M.LANE, BENGALURU-560053. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. KANTHARAJU N.K, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE REGISTRAR, VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, JNANA SANGAMA, BELGAUM-590019.
2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION), VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, JNANA SANGAMA, BELGAUM-590019.
3. THE PRINCIPAL, B.M.S.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, (AUTONOMOUS COLLEGE UNDER VTU) BENGALURU-560019. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH.S.NAGARALE, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. H.SRINIVAS RAO AND SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO TAKE UP EXAMINATION FOR THE LEFT OUT SUBJECT VIZ., 1.ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY[14CY11CCHY] OF FIRST YEAR AND 2.INSTITUTIONAL ELECTIVE OF FOURTH YEAR IN B.E. COMPUTER SCIENCE AS PER CLAUSE 7.2.[H] OF GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ACADEMIC AUTONOMY TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE R-3 COLLEGE AND THE EXAMINATION SCHEDULED TO BE HELD BETWEEN 24.7.2017 TO 31.7.2017 PURSUANT TO THE REPRESENTATION DTD:1.6.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR ‘HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The statement of marks and grade placed before this court by the third respondent is taken on record.
3. The petitioner was admitted to the B.E. Computer Science and Engineering course in the academic year 2010-11 and that he had completed all the eight semesters and in the course of the same, he had cleared all the papers except for two subjects namely Engineering Chemistry of the 1st year and Institutional Elective of 4th year.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had secured 191 credits out of 200 credits and that the petitioner is required to obtain the degree within a maximum duration of eight years. That the petitioner had made five attempts for the Engineering Chemistry paper and with regard to the syllabus, the petitioner was required to adhere to the scheme of 2010-11 syllabus only and after completion of the course, he had sought readmission in order to complete the left out subjects in 2016. But then almost two months were over, due to the delay in the re- registration process by the third respondent college and when he appeared for the examination, to his shock and surprise he found that only 50% of the questions were from the syllabi of 2010-11 and despite the severe handicap, he made a valiant attempt to answer the questions and that he had applied for revaluation. But the discrepancy was not set-right and he was awarded meager marks and grace marks. Thereafter, the third respondent by its letter dated 25.03.2017 recommended to the respondent-University that the petitioner be permitted an extra attempt to complete the course and the respondent- University intimated the petitioner that, they would correspond with the college and intimate the third respondent of their decision.
5. It is submitted that when the petitioner again approached the third respondent institution, the third respondent rejected his request for the extra attempt. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent is an autonomous college and has framed a separate guidelines and that one of the clauses upon which reliance is placed by the third respondent autonomous institution is that the student fails on getting “F” grade and if has not passed the course despite five attempts, he shall be required to withdraw from the programme and leave the college. In the light of the said regulation, the third respondent rejected the request of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are innumerable instances whereby, both the University and the third respondent institution, have permitted additional attempts to students under various schemes and circumstances and it is contended that the petitioner has been consistently attempting and has cleared all the papers except the aforestated two subjects and that the petitioner on account of various circumstances was handicapped from performing well in the examinations. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the orders of this court passed in W.P. No.24016/2014 and W.P. No.36505/2014 wherein, this court after considering the facts and circumstances involved in those cases was pleased to allow the writ petitions thereby, permitting the petitioners the additional attempt and further directed regularization of the course and further directed that his credentials and other certificates be issued to him on the petitioner successfully clearing the examinations.
7. Learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the respondent cannot act contrary to its own academic regulations and that regulation 14.6 relates to termination of the programme and he would submit that as per regulation 14.6.1 if the students is awarded ‘F’ grade despite five attempts, then he is required to leave the programme and is required to be dispatched from the college and to leave the programme.
8. This court has adverted to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is seen that the petitioner has a backlog of two subjects. In respect of one subject he has completed the five attempts as permitted under the academic regulations of the third respondent college. With regard to the other subjects namely Institutional Elective which is a 4th year subject, the petitioner has still got four more attempts. It is seen that over the span of eight semesters a student of Engineering is required to pass out in as many as 60 subjects including both the theory + lab subjects. Out of the said numbers, the petitioner has cleared all but two papers. The said fact by itself is indicative of the industrious nature of the petitioner. That apart, it is seen that he has been religiously making attempts to clear the subject Engineering Chemistry and Institutional Elective. With regard to the second paper, he still has four more permitted attempts though he has exhausted all the five permitted attempts even before completing the course. The intent and object of the provision restricting the number of attempts is in all probability to prevent indolent and non industrious persons.
9. Be that as it may, if in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the students who still are legally permitted to appear for one subject is deprived of the opportunity to appear in respect of another paper of the same course, it would cause serious hardship. Further the five stipulated attempts, could be read as attempts after the completion of the course of study and not those attempted during the course of study. Further admittedly the student is permitted 8 years to complete the course. It is not the case of the 3rd respondent that 8 years have since lapsed.
10. This court by order dated 08.06.2017 had permitted the petitioner to take up the examinations subsequently by order dated 12.10.2017. The third respondent was directed to places the results of the petitioner in the sealed cover in the light of the order passed by this court on 08.06.2017. Today the third respondent has placed the results before the court. It is seen that the petitioner has cleared the papers with a ‘B’ grade. ‘B’ grade is indicative of a marks in the range between 60% to 75% and grade point of eight.
11. In the considered opinion of this court, the petitioner who has cleared the subjects with such high proficiency must not be denied the fruits of his labour and his persistence. It is not in dispute that the respondents both the University and the institution have the history of permitting additional attempts as a one time measure and this court takes cognizance of the said fact also and hence, the examination taken by the petitioner in respect of Engineering Chemistry shall be considered as an additional attempt and the third respondent shall declare the results and issue the grades and the certificates that the petitioner is entitled to.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE CT-HR Chs*