semester of the petitioner were to be excluded from consideration, the petitioner, nevertheless, fulfilled the required CGPA stipulation, to entitle him to be awarded an M.A. degree. The objection of the JNU was, essentially, regarding the number of credits earned by the petitioner. This number stood artificially reduced from sixty eight, to fifty two, because of the exclusion of the four courses undertaken by the petitioner in the second semester of his M.A. programme, in April/May, 2017. The reduction was “artificial”, because the petitioner had, in fact, appeared in, and undertaken, the said four courses, but the said appearance, an undertaking of the courses, by the petitioner, were deemed to have been surrendered, by the JNU, by operation of the proviso to Clause 8.6 of Ordinance 15(A) ( supra ). In my considered opinion, the very invocation of the said proviso, to Clause 8.6, was completely misconceived. By its very nature, the proviso to Clause 8.6 could not have permitted something which stood prohibited by the other Clauses of Ordinance 15(A). Even on its plain reading, the proviso would apply only in a situation in which the desire, of the student, to repeat his earlier course/courses, to improve his performance, was permissible under Ordinance 15 (A). If the desire of the student was itself in contravention of the Ordinance, there could, quite obviously, be no question of operating the proviso to Clause 8.6, or of deeming the student to have surrendered his or her earlier grade, thereunder. The surrender, by the petitioner, of the grades, and the credits, obtained by him in the four courses of his second semester, as undertaken in April/May, 2017, could, quite obviously, only be consequential on the petitioner being permitted, by the Ordinance, to repeat the said four courses, in order to improve his performance.
