Dismissed

Akash Mangal Son of Rajendra Mangal v. Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University

Rajasthan HC4 Feb 2023CW/14719/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the university's refusal to declare results and appoint the petitioner to Part-III Agriculture studies due to low OGPA in Part-II Semester-II. Court held that promotion was contrary to rules as minimum OGPA was not met and distinguished cited precedent as facts differed regarding admission legality.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for direction to issue results and allow regular classes was rejected.

Akash Mangal Son of Rajendra Mangal Vs Sri Karan… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14719/2022

¶3

Akash Mangal Son Of Rajendra Mangal, Aged About 23 Years, Resident of Mishra Gali, Mohalla Wazirpur, Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur Through Its Chancellor.

¶7

Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur Through Its Registrar.

¶8

The Controller Examination, Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University Jobner, Jaipur.

¶9

The College Of Agriculture, Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.) Through Its Principal.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vedant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jag Mohan Saxena

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶13

Order

¶14

04/02/2023

¶15

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶16

following prayer :

¶17

“a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to issue the result of petitioner of the B.Sc. Part-IIIrd year (Hons.) course with agriculture First Semester examination and further the respondents may kindly be directed to allow to petitioner to attend regular classes of B.SC. Part-IIIrd year (Hons) Agriculture course;

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, after passing Senior Secondary Examination, was

¶19

(2 of 11)

¶20

[CW-14719/2022]

¶21

granted admission in B.Sc. (Hons.) Course with the subject of Agriculture and he was allotted the College of Agriculture, Lalsot.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner passed all the semester of B.Sc. Part-I Year (Hons.) course with agriculture and appeared in B.Sc. Part-II Year (Hons.) course and was also declared successful in first semester examination of the aforesaid course.

¶23

Learned counsel submitted that the respondents conducted B.Sc. Part-II Year (Hons.) course and issued admission card to the petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel submitted that meanwhile, the petitioner was also granted admission in B.Sc. Part-III Year (Hons.) and necessary fee was deposited.

¶25

Learned counsel submitted that grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was declared successful in B.Sc. Part-II Year (Hons.) course with agriculture second semester examination and declared successful, he, therefore, appeared in first semester examination and got admission in B.Sc. Part -III Year (Hons.) but the respondents had not issued result of B.Sc. Part-III Year (Hons.) course with agriculture first semester examination without any reason.

¶26

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner submitted several representations before the Authorities for issuance of result of B.Sc. Part-III Year (Hons.) course with agriculture first semester examination but no heed was paid and as such, the respondents, without reasonable reason and cause, did not issue result of B.Sc. Part-III Year (Hons.) course with agriculture first

¶27

(3 of 11)

¶28

[CW-14719/2022]

¶29

semester examination and as such, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, this Court passed an order on 16^th December, 2022, whereby recording the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed the respondents to inform this Court result of the petitioner, relating to Examination of Part-III, Semester I & II.

¶31

Learned counsel submitted that this Court, on 23^rd January, 2023, after considering result of the petitioner produced before this Court, found that the petitioner had secured 5.09 OGPA in B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture Part-III Semester-I and 5.24 OGPA in B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture Part-III Semester-II for the Academic Session 2021-22.

¶32

Learned counsel submitted that since the respondents were conducting examination of B.Sc. Part-IV Year (Hons.) Course Semester-I and as such, the direction was given to learned counsel to prepare the concise statement showing complete result of the petitioner of Part-I and III of all the semesters.

¶33

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has produced statement showing complete result of the petitioner by preparing a chart.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who had written Part-I Semester-I Examination, was required to appear in total 17 papers, i.e., 10 theory and 7 practical papers, however, the petitioner passed 7 practical papers and 7 theory papers and as such, three theory papers remained as due paper and as such, the petitioner had secured 5.11 SGPA.

¶35

(4 of 11)

¶36

[CW-14719/2022]

¶37

Learned counsel further referred to a chart, wherein in Part-I Semester-II, all the candidates were promoted to next higher class on account of COVID-19 and OGPA of 5.11 was awarded to the petitioner.

¶38

Learned counsel, while referring to result of Part-II Semester-I, submitted that there were in all 9 theory and 8 practical paper and as such, there were three theory paper of Part-I Semester-II examination that the petitioner had to write 20 papers in all, however, learned counsel submitted that said result of the petitioner was cancelled on account of the petitioner being found involved in use of unfair means in the examination.

¶39

Learned counsel further referred to result of Part-II Semester-II Examination, where in all 20 papers were there, i.e., 10 theory and 10 practical papers and the petitioner passed all the papers by securing 3.88 OGPA.

¶40

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner in Part-III Semester-I had 18 papers, i.e., 9 theory and 9 practical papers and had 10 due papers, however, the petitioner passed in the said examination and got 5.09 OGPA.

¶41

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner also appeared in Part-III Semester-II examination and he appeared in total 20 papers, i.e., 10 theory and 10 practical papers and has been passed by securing 5.24 OGPA.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submission, has referred to Information Bulletin, which was issued by the respondent-University.

¶43

Learned counsel submitted that for the Under-graduate Programme B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture, complete procedure has

¶44

(5 of 11)

¶45

[CW-14719/2022]

¶46

been provided under Clause 1.4, relating to examination and as per Clause 1.4.8, the under-graduate students, who fail to maintain an OGPA of 4.0/10.00 at the end of the first academic year or 4.5/10.00 at the end of second academic year & 4.75/10.00 at the end of III academic year, as the case may be, will be dropped from the college by the respective Dean/Principal automatically.

¶47

Learned counsel submitted that as per Clause 1.4.10, the student, who is dropped at the end of second academic year is given one more extra semester to improve OGPA on his/her request to the concerned Dean/Principal and if the OGPA is still not improved to the required level, the candidate is dropped from the college.

¶48

Learned counsel submitted that the said Clause 1.4.10 further provides an opportunity to the candidate to file a mercy petition before the Vice Chancellor and if one more extra semester is granted to the candidate, the candidate has to maintain the earlier OGPA at the end of the semester.

¶49

Learned counsel also submitted that the Information Booklet also contains a Clause, relating to award of grades as per Clause 8.6 of Information Bulletin, if the student fails to be on good academic standing at the end of a semester, he/she will be placed on ‘Scholastic Probation’ in the semester following it and as such, he/she is required to improve his/her OGPA by the end of semester.

¶50

Learned counsel submitted that since the respondents themselves permitted the petitioner to get admission in Part-III Semester-I and as such, the respondents cannot be justified in

¶51

(6 of 11)

¶52

[CW-14719/2022]

¶53

withholding result of the petitioner and further, not taking the petitioner as eligible to pursue the course in Part-III Semester-I examination.

¶54

Learned counsel submitted that reply, filed by the respondents, do not in any manner justify that the petitioner was not liable to be given benefit of scholastic probation.

¶55

Learned counsel submitted that even if the respondent – University had erroneously permitted the petitioner to get admission in Part-III Semester-I examination, and on account of the fault, committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer, as the petitioner has never made any misrepresentation to the Authorities to get admission in the higher class and to appear in the examination.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 823).

¶57

Learned counsel, while making submissions, submitted that the real cause of not permitting the petitioner to write the examination of Part-III Semester-I is according to the new clause, which has been provided by the respondents in the Information Bulletin, where as per Clause 1.5.1, the student is permitted to only take maximum five backlog theory and practical paper along with his/her regular papers in the semester.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that condition of having maximum five backlog papers has wrongly been applied to the petitioner, as the petitioner had got admission in the year

¶59

(7 of 11)

¶60

[CW-14719/2022]

¶61

2019-20 and his case was required to be governed without having outer limit of passing the backlog papers.

¶62

Learned counsel submitted that the Information Bulletin, which has been issued in the year 2022-23, could not have been used by the respondents while dealing with the case of the petitioner.

¶63

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the grievance, raised by the petitioner in the present petition, may not be entertained by this Court, as the Vice Chancellor of the respondent – University had already constituted a Committee to look into the grievance, raised by the petitioner before this Court.

¶64

Learned counsel submitted that the Committee of Three Members had gone into the entire issue and Members of the Committee have recorded its findings that on one hand, the Dean had issued the letter dated 11^th April, 2022, dropping the petitioner from the college, as per Clause 1.4.8 of the Information Bulletin and on the same date, the Dean, after having conversation with the Controller (Examination), issued another order dated 11^th April, 2022 promoting the petitioner to B.Sc. PartIII of placing him on scholastic probation till declaration of his result of B.Sc. Part-II Semester-I examination, in which, the petitioner was to appear in due papers and as such, the said permission to the petitioner was found against the rules.

¶65

Learned counsel submitted that the Committee Members also considered the issue of having requisite OGPA by the candidate and since the petitioner was required to have OGPA of 4.00 at the end of the academic session and the petitioner had got only 3.88

¶66

(8 of 11)

¶67

[CW-14719/2022]

¶68

OGPA and as such, the action of Dean itself was found to be contrary to the procedure, which was prescribed for considering promotion of the student to the next higher class.

¶69

Learned counsel further submitted that the said report of the Committee was duly considered by the Vice Chancellor and even the warning was issued to the Dean concerned, who had wrongly promoted the petitioner to Part-III Semester-I.

¶70

Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that even the Dean, who committed such illegality/irregularity, was issued a charge sheet by the competent authority.

¶71

Learned counsel submitted that on account of some mistake being committed by the Dean of the faculty while promoting the petitioner, no benefit can be conferred in favour of the petitioner.

¶72

Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly, the petitioner, who had appeared in Part-II Semester-I examination in the year 2020-21, though, he appeared in 18+3 backlog papers, i.e., total 21 papers, however, the result of said examination was cancelled.

¶73

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on account of the petitioner’s performance in Part-II Semester-II examination, where he secured only 3.88 marks, which is less than the requisite criteria prescribed, the petitioner could not have been promoted to Part-III examination.

¶74

Learned counsel further submitted that appearance of the petitioner in the examination and declaration of result before this Court will not be giving any benefit to the petitioner, as he has to

¶75

(9 of 11)

¶76

[CW-14719/2022]

¶77

secure the minimum OGPA and SGPA, which is prescribed for the particular semester.

¶78

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶79

This Court finds that Clause 1.4.8 of the relevant Information Bulletin of the respondent University prescribes passing requirement and minimum grade for passing the course would be four out of ten.

¶80

This Court finds that as per Clause 1.4.8, an under-graduate has to maintain an OGPA of 4.0 at the end of first semester or 4.5 at the end of second academic session and 4.75 at the end of third academic session, as the case may be.

¶81

This Court further finds that candidate, who is dropped at the end of second academic session is given one more extra semester to improve OGPA on his request to the concerned Dean.

¶82

This Court, in the facts of the present case, finds that the petitioner was permitted to write his due papers of Part-I Semester-I while appearing in Part-II Semester-I Examination and till this juncture, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to improve his CGPA, however, the entire result of the petitioner was cancelled on account of him being found using some unfair means. The very purpose of giving a chance to the student to improve his OGPA was already availed by the petitioner, as per Clause 1.4.10 of the Information Bulletin.

¶83

This Court further finds that the petitioner appeared in PartII Semester-II and in the result, he was declared fail, as he secured 3.588 OGPA.

¶84

(10 of 11)

¶85

[CW-14719/2022]

¶86

This Court finds that the respondents could not have promoted the petitioner to Part-III Semester-I Examination, as the petitioner did not have the requisite OGPA.

¶87

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that scholastic probation was rightly given by the Dean of the faculty by promoting the petitioner to Part-III Semester-I, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University seriously disputes the said provision being made applicable to the Graduation Courses, as counsel for the respondents submits that the said provision is only for the purpose of Post Graduation Courses.

¶88

This Court finds that as far as the benefit of scholastic probation is concerned, the petitioner could not have claimed such benefit.

¶89

The submission of counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are applying the new Information Bulletin on the petitioner and as such, maximum five backlog papers, which have been prescribed under the new regime, cannot be made applicable to the petitioner, this Court finds that Information Bulletin for 2022-23 has been issued to guide the fresh candidates taking admission in first academic year and as such, there is no substance in the submission of counsel for the petitioner that on account of new regulation, the petitioner has been treated ineligible in Part-III Semester-I.

¶90

The submission of counsel for the petitioner that the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi (supra) has laid down the law that if candidate is not at fault then he is not supposed to suffer on account of the mistake, committed by the University Authorities, suffice it to say by this Court that the Apex

¶91

(11 of 11)

¶92

[CW-14719/2022]

¶93

Court in the said case was considering that the candidate was granted admission and further the minimum requirement of admission was not overlooked by the Authorities while granting admission and as such, candidates had appeared in paper subsequently and in such factual background, the Apex Court came to conclusion that the petitioner had not secured admission in any illegal manner and as such, there was no suppression by the candidate and accordingly, the benefit was extended to that candidate by the Apex Court. This judgment is of no assistance to counsel for the petitioner.

¶94

This Court finds that prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be accepted by this Court.

¶95

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

¶96

It goes without saying that if the petitioner is eligible to pursue his course, as per the Rules and Regulations, which have been framed by the University, the University-Authorities will accordingly proceed further in the matter and they will not have any prejudice only on account of prayer of the petitioner not being granted by this Court in the present matter.

¶97

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶98

Preeti Asopa /10

Akash Mangal Son of Rajendra Mangal v. Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Mangal Son of Rajendra Mangal v. Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Abhyudhaya Construction Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chief Engineer (Nh and Ppp)

R.G. Colonizers Private Limited Vs Sweets Buildhomes Projects

M/S Monilek Hospital and Research Centre, Vs Dr. Sanjay Khandelwal Son of Shri Radha Mohan Gupta

Pawan Kumar Jangir Vs Sashastra Seema Bal and Ors.

Asha Ram Choudhary S/O Shri. Shyojiram Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan through Principle Secretary

Smt. Krishna Kaushik Wife of Late Shri Naresh Kaushik Vs Parbhu Dayal Sharma Son of Late Shri Rampal Sharma