Petitioners challenging a college order to repeat a semester for failing to secure 40% sessional marks. The court held that autonomous college rules permitting such repetition are valid and no writ lies to direct exams or promotion.
Writ petition dismissed; interim application regarding examination writing and result declaration refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
W.P.NO.10186 OF 2019
O R D E R
The petitioners in this writ petition are studying B.Tech. (Mechanical Engineering) II year, IV semester in the 3rd respondent – Vasavi College of Engineering, represented by its Principal. Since the aggregate percentage of sessional marks of the petitioners are less than 40% in IV semester B.E. course, 3rd respondent passed the impugned order in R.O.No. 001 dated 02.05.2019, advising them to repeat the same course for the next academic year by paying the required tuition fee and they were sought to be restrained to appear for semester theory examinations. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
By virtue of the interim order of this court dated 5.5.2019, petitioners were permitted to write IV semester examination of B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) II year and their results were directed to be withheld.
The 3rd respondent – College filed counter affidavit and stated intera alia that the college is an autonomous institution and has framed its rules, which are in line with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission and these rules have been approved by the Academic Council and the Board of Governors (BOG) of the college, and as per these rules, a student has to secure a minimum aggregate of 40% sessional marks, to become eligible for appearing in the semester examinations, and if the students fails to secure minimum marks, has to undergo afresh a regular course of study of the corresponding semester in the subsequent academic session in order to become eligible to appear for semester examination. As the petitioners failed to secure the minimum of 40% sessional marks in the IV semester in aggregate, impugned order was passed advising them to repeat the course as per rules. With these averments, the writ petition is sought to be dismissed.
2
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have required attendance and due to ill-health, they could not secure the minimum of 40% sessional marks in the internal exams conducted by the 3rd respondents, and if they are detained and made to repeat the course, they would be put to irreparable loss. He submits that petitioners have paid the examination fee and by virtue of the interim orders of this court, they were also permitted to write the examinations. He submits that respondents may be directed to declare the results and promote the petitioner to the next semester of course.
Heard the Government Pleader for Higher Education for 1st respondent, Sri M.Srikanth for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri Jagannadha Rao, Standing counsel for respondents 4 and 5.
From the material on record, there is no dispute that the petitioners have secured 34.63% and 35.6% respectively,of sessional marks in the IV semester, and as per the rules governing the field, they are required to secure minimum of 40% in aggregate, and the college, which is an autonomous institution, is empowered to frame such rules, which are as per the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission. The said rule is not under challenge in this writ petition and hence, petitioners are governed by the rules formulated by the college. Further, in W.P.Nos.31572 and 34760 of 2018 dated 12.10.2018, when the academic rules formulated by the college with regard to Choice Based Credit System for the academic year 2016-17 for promotion of students, was challenged, this court observed that as per Clause 2(b) of the University Grants Commission XII Plan guidelines in respect of Scheme of Autonomous College, the autonomous colleges are free to make use of the expertise of a University Department and other institutions to frame their curricula, devise methods of teaching, examination and evaluation. This court has eventually dismissed the said writ petitions.
3
As the petitioners secured sessional marks in the IV semester less than 40% in aggregate, 3rd respondent cannot be directed to permit them to write the examinations and declare results. This court cannot issue mandamus, which runs contrary to statute, and the rules framed by the college. Though this court has sympathy towards the petitioners, has no option but to dismiss the writ petition.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
----------------------------------------------
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
DATE:08—07—2019
avs
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ court can direct an autonomous college to permit a student to appear for examinations despite failing to meet the mandatory 40% sessional marks requirement framed by the college.
Whether the academic rules requiring 40% aggregate sessional marks for promotion and examination eligibility can be challenged.
Whether the petitioner can be promoted to the next semester despite failing to secure the minimum required sessional marks.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.Nos.31572 and 34760 of 2018 dated 12.10.2018Referred¶10
Pers. Applicants (B.Tech Students)
Government Pleader for Higher Education
Autonomous Institution / Vasavi College of Engineering
University Grants Commission
Standing Counsel
A RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
