Forum For Fairness In Education ... vs University Of Mumbai And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 580 Bom

JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, C.J.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners as Public Interest Litigation for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondent No. 1, the University of Mumbai, to allow petitioners No. 2 to 6 and other similarly placed students admitted to 3rd Semester and completed their term work to attend 4th Semester and to allow them to appear for 3rd and 4th Semester examinations simultaneously, irrespective of the number of ATKTs that they had for the First Year Degree of Engineering.

2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a registered non-Government organisation established for seeking fairness in education and working for eradication of unfair practices in the field of education. Petitioners No. 2 to 6 are students of respondents No. 3 to 7. They are the students studying in the 2nd Year of Bachelor of Engineering Degree in the academic year 2001-02. Respondents 3 to 7 are colleges affiliated to respondent No. 1-University.

3. According to the petitioners, they are aggrieved by the Ordinance issued by respondent No. 1 - University denying them the facility of ATKTs. According to petitioners 2 to 6, they were admitted to the Engineering Degree Course for the academic year 2001-02 (Revised or New Course); and, accordingly, they were admitted to respondents 3 to 7 colleges. As per the procedure of the University, students were allowed to keep certain terms. The case of the petitioners is that such action was taken in view of negligence on the part of the University in declaring results in time, i.e., within 45 days of the completion of examination.

4. With effect from academic year 2001-02, respondent No. 1-University introduced a new (revised) course for the First Year Engineering Degree Examination. In February, 2002, examinations of First Year B.E. were held. It was for 1st Semester, 2nd Semester began in February, 2002 and ended in May, 2002. As the result of First Year B.E. was not declared, students were given admission to the Second Year of B.E., i.e., for 3rd Semester in June-July, 2002. Substantial amount of admission fee was paid by petitioners No. 2 to 6 and other similarly situated students for Second Year B.E. Second year started in August, 2002. Again, results were delayed. Petitioners No. 2 to 6 submitted their term work to the respective colleges in November, 2002. It was also stated by the petitioners that the students were informed that those students who would be getting more than 4 ATKTs would not be allowed to appear for 3rd Semester Examination, which was illegal. Several students, therefore, made a representation to respondent No. 1-University requesting it to allow them to appear for 3rd Semester Examination, irrespective of number of ATKTs, as they had to suffer because of non-declaration of results by the University, However, the University did not allow them to appear at the 3rd Semester Examination. Hence, this petition,

5. The respondent-University issued a Circular bearing No. 476 of 2002 in November, 2002, stating therein that "candidates who have failed in not more than 8 heads of passing at semesters I and II (Old Course) taken together and who have kept the terms for semester III (Revised Course) be permitted to appear for semester III (Revised Course) examinations in the academic year 2002-2003 only as a special case".

6. According to the petitioners, the first respondent-University has thus given relaxation to some students and denied such relaxation to other students. An action of the University of extending the benefit/concession only to the students who had pursued the First Year Engineering Course (Old Course) and not to the students who had pursued the same First Year Engineering Course (Revised Course) is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. The students, who had pursued Old Course as well as Revised Course, are similarly situated and benefit of concession in favour of one class, depriving similar benefit or concession in favour of the other class would be violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

7. It was also submitted that there was negligence and carelessness on the part of the University and the petitioner-students cannot be blamed. They had made several representations regarding negligence by the University. It was stated that the students had paid substantial amount by way of Admission Fees to the colleges. To deprive them now from getting the benefits which had been given to other students would be unlawful and inequitable. Petitioners No. 2 to 6 had completed studies for the next term; they had completed, term works and submitted their reports. If now they will not be allowed to appear at the examination, serious prejudice will be caused to them. It was also alleged that due to lapses on the part of respondent No. 1-University, the result of Engineering Examinations has fallen down to almost 11% only. If relief would be granted to petitioners No. 2 to 6 and similarly situated persons, no prejudice would be caused to other students or to the University; but if such a prayer is refused, petitioners No. 2 to 6 would suffer. It was, therefore, submitted that an appropriate direction may be issued to respondent No. 1-University as well as to the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 2, so that petitioners 2 to 6 and other such students can appear at the ensuing examination.

8. An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the University by the Deputy Registrar of the University. It is stated that the petition is misconceived and not maintainable in law, in view of a petition, being Writ Petition No. 296 of 2002, filed as Public Interest Litigation by petitioner No. 1 itself, wherein the petitioner, inter alia, prayed that the standard of technical education be improved. If the case of the petitioners in the present petition is that Ordinance issued by the University should be relaxed by granting ATKT facility in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, it would imply that petitioner No. 1 prays for dilution of academic standards in technical education, which would be inconsistent with the prayers made in previous petition. It was also stated that the grievance of the petitioners is that petitioners No. 2 to 6 be allowed to appear at the examination. It is really a personal grievance of those petitioners. If they were aggrieved by the said action, they may institute individual petitions.

9. According to the first respondent, ATKT cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is a sort of concession given by the University. It was stated that new Revised Course of B.E. Degree was introduced from academic year 2001-02, whereby earlier wide-ranging and cumbersome course covering 16 subjects in the First Year B. E. was reduced to only 10 subjects spread over in two semesters, Semesters I and II, with 5 subjects per semester.

10. By a Circular dated June, 20, 2001, new scheme and syllabi of papers and the list of recommended books for Semesters I and II were issued. It was in pursuance of condensed compact course that the exercise was undertaken by the University. It, therefore, cannot be said that the students were over-burdened. On the contrary, the Revised Course has been made much more easy. Petitioners No. 2 to 6 had made an attempt to cover their deficiency in not passing the requisite number of papers, and as such, they are not eligible to enter in Second Year B. E. Degree.

11. It was also stated that revised B. E. Degree Course was communicated to the affiliated Colleges of Engineering by a Circular dated July 29, 2002. Since there was delay in declaration of result of First B.E., special arrangement was made under which the University had allowed such students to provisionally attend lectures pending declaration of results on an undertaking to be furnished by them that if they would be found ineligible, they would discontinue study and would not claim any benefits therefrom. To the same effect, a Circular was issued on September 17, 2002. If respondents 3 to 7 colleges had not followed those instructions, admitted petitioners 2 to 6 and other students and collected Admission Fees, it was illegal and grossly unlawful action. It was also in violation of University Circular dated September 17, 2002.

12. The deponent has also stated that the petitioners were not right in contending that large number of failures occurred during academic year 2000-01 due to introduction of new syllabi. A chart in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit clearly proves that percentage of passing was very high. It was much less in academic years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.

13. It is also asserted by the deponent that in order to gradually phase out Old Course, as a one-time measure, the students who had undergone Old Course were allowed to appear by relaxing the ATKT Rules and by granting benefit of 8 ATKTs. Such a concession can neither be claimed by petitioners 2 to 6, nor it can be granted to them who had pursued Revised Course. Both the categories of students, viz., students of the Old Course and students of the Revised Course, were differently situated. No comparison, therefore, can be made between those two categories of students. It was submitted that if the prayer of the petitioners would be granted, it would violate University Ordinance. Several other students were also not permitted to appear at the examination; and keeping in mind the legal position and the action of the University being in conformity with law, they have accepted the said decision. Grant of relief to the petitioners would prejudice law-abiding students.

14. Regarding respondents 3, 4 and 7-colleges, it was stated that series of irregularities had been committed by those colleges, which is clear from a report of One Man Committee of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. N. Chandurkar, Ex-Chief Justice of this Court as well as High Court of Madras, and also a Committee under the convenership of Professor S. Sundaram, formerly Dean, Faculty of Technology, which made shocking revelations of those colleges. On all these grounds, it was submitted that no case has been made out by the petitioners, and they are not entitled to any relief from this Court.

15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed by them in the petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

16. The learned counsel, for respondent No. 1 -- University is right in contending that ATKT cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is a concession or a benefit granted by the University, keeping in mind all attenuating circumstances. Ordinarily, in such cases, it is the University which would take into account the factual situation and larger interest of student community and take a decision. A Court of Law would be slow in interfering with the decision of the University in not granting the benefit/concession of ATKT, which is in the nature of exception to the main rule that every student has to clear the examination in its entirety. When the University has pleaded that concession of ATKT was made available upto certain ATKTs, the Court would not order the educational institution to extend more benefits. It is, no doubt, true that 8 ATKTs were granted by the University to students, who had undergone Old Course, but, as stated in the Ordinance itself, as also in the affidavit-in-reply, it was because of a special fact that the Revised Course has been introduced that students of Old Course were granted an additional concession "as a special case". In our considered opinion, by doing so, the University has not acted illegally, arbitrarily or unreasonably. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, who had taken Revised Course, cannot be said to be similarly situated to those students who had undergone Old Course; and, hence, they cannot claim a concession, granted to students of Old Course.

17. It is not correct, as contended by the petitioners, that because of Revised Course, results were very poor. On the contrary, from the affidavit-in-reply, as also the chart, which has been prepared by the first respondent-University, it is clear that percentage of passing has increased and not decreased. It is also of common knowledge that if, instead of appearing at the examination for several subjects, at a time, Semester System is introduced and applied, it would benefit the students and examinees, and when such method had been adopted by the University, no fault can be found against that approach.

18. Regarding Admission Fees, the stand of the University is explicitly clear. Unless student clears an examination or is permitted to prosecute studies for the next year, he/she cannot be granted admission in that year. Therefore, in the normal course also, no admission could have been granted by a college to a student, who had not cleared the examination of a previous year. Keeping in mind a peculiar circumstance, viz., non-declaration of result, the University adopted a practical approach by permitting the colleges to provisionally allow the students to join classes of the next year, as the result of the previous year was not declared. To us, it is clear that that action was taken in the larger interest of the student community. It was not for the benefit of the colleges. Precisely, for that reason, the University also directed colleges not to grant admission or to accept or recover Admission Fees. Students were also asked to give an undertaking to the effect that they were allowed to attend the classes without paying fees; and in the event of they being ineligible, on admission after declaration of results, they would discontinue attending the classes and would not claim any benefit thereof.

19. If, in spite of the above position, respondents 3 to 7 or any other college had recovered Admission Fees from petitioners 2 to 6 or other students, the first respondent-University is right in submitting that it was an unlawful act and those colleges will have to refund/re-pay the said amount to students. It is open to such students to take appropriate proceedings for refund and/or recovery of such amount. It is also open to the University as well as other authorities to take appropriate action against erring colleges. That, however, does not give right to petitioners 2 to 6 or other students against respondent No. 1 by praying that those students should be allowed to appear at the examination, even though they are not otherwise eligible.

20. The first respondent is also right in contending that the stand of the University must be consistent. When they have not allowed students of a Revised Course to appear for examination by granting 8 ATKTs, no benefit can be extended to petitioner Nos. 2 to 6. Those students, who have approached this Court, therefore, cannot get such benefits. The counsel of the first respondent is also right in submitting that so far as respondents 3, 4 and 7-colleges are concerned, the Committees have taken note of serious irregularities committed by them.

21. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The petition deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.