Shreyas Sanjaykumar Bhagat vs Maha. State Board Of Technical ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6786 Bom

                                                                      3wp 2796.2022.odt
                                           1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                    WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 2796/2022

          Shreyas Sanjaykumar Bhagat,
          Aged About 19 Years, Occ:- Student,
          R/o Plot no. 67, Madhav Nagar,
          Waghpur Road, Dist. Yavatmal 445001.                   ..... PETITIONER

                                   // VERSUS //

1.        Maharashtra State Board of Technical
          Education.
          Through the Deputy Secretary,
          Technical Education Regional Office,
          Government Polytechnic Campus,
          Sadar Bazar, Nagpur 440001.

2.        Governing Council of the Maharashtra
          State Board of Technical Education,
          Through the Controller of Examination Officer
          Incharge, Mumbai Sub-region
          2nd Floor, Govt. Polytechnic Building,
          49 Kherwadi, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051.

3.        Principal, Acharya Shrimannarayan
          Polytechnic College,
          Tq. Pipri Dist. Wardha.                             .... RESPONDENT(S)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.R. Puri, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 Respondent no. 3 served.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.J. DATED : 18/07/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

SMGate 3wp 2796.2022.odt

In view of the notice for final disposal issued earlier, the

learned Counsel for the parties have been heard by issuing Rule and

making it returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner is pursuing Diploma in Civil and Rural

Engineering at the respondent no. 3 - College. He appeared for the 5 th

Semester Examination in February 2022 and secured 73.2% marks. In

the Practical Examination he secured 331 marks out of 500 marks. Since

the petitioner was not satisfied with the aforesaid score he sought to

appear in the improvement examination as provided in the Regulation

RE-8 of Part II of the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education

Examination (For the Diploma, Post-Diploma, Post Graduate Diploma,

Advanced Diploma and any other Diploma in Engineering/Technology

and such other disciplines) Regulations, 2018 (for short the "Regulations

of 2018"). He moved an application on 18.04.2022 in that regard. The

petitioner was orally informed that the facility in improvement of

performance was only to the extent of Theory Examination and not for

the Practical Examination. Since according to the petitioner, he was

denied an opportunity of improvement of performance in the Practical

Examination, he has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the

Regulation RE-8 of the Regulations of 2018 was unconstitutional since it

SMGate 3wp 2796.2022.odt

denied an opportunity of improvement of performance in the Practical

Examination.

3. On 07.06.2022 by an interim order the petitioner was

permitted to appear for the 5th Semester Summer-2022 Theory

Examination subject to final outcome of the writ petition. Accordingly,

the petitioner has appeared for the 5 th Semester Examination and since

the petitioner desires to undertake the Practical Examination for

improving his performance, the writ petition has been heard.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a

plain reading of the Regulation RE-8 of the Regulations of 2018 in the

matter of improvement of performance, it was clear that the candidates

who passed the pre-final and final Semester Examinations leading to

award of Diploma could be permitted to re-appear at the same

examination for improving his/her performance within a year. While

attempt for improvement was permitted for the Theory Examination,

there was no reason to exclude such permission for the Practical

Examination. Inviting attention to similar Regulations for the Pharmacy

Course as framed by the respondent no. 2, it was submitted that such

facility for improving performance in the Practical Examination was

permissible therein. There was no reason to exclude the Civil and Rural

Engineering Course from the facility of appearing and seeking to

SMGate 3wp 2796.2022.odt

improve the performance in the Practical Examination. In absence of any

rational basis for denying the facility of improvement of performance in

the Practical Examination, Clause RE-8 of the said Regulation was

arbitrary. It was thus submitted that the petitioner was entitled for the

relief as prayed for.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2

opposed the aforesaid submissions by relying upon the reply filed on

record. It was submitted that since the petitioner had not passed Final

Year Examination including the 6th Semester, he was not eligible to seek

improvement of his performance. As per Regulation RE-8 of the

Regulations of 2018, such facility was available only after passing the

Final Semester Examination which was the 6 th Semester Examination.

After appearing in the 6 th Semester Examination it would open for the

petitioner to seek improvement of his performance. He further submitted

that there was no provision for improving the performance in the

Practical Examination. The Regulations framed for the Pharmacy Course

could not be relied upon to seek facility of improvement in the

Engineering Course in so far as the Practical Examination was

concerned. The nature of instructions imparted in both the Courses was

different and hence there was nothing arbitrary therein. It was submitted

that the request made by the petitioner on 18.04.2022 was premature as

SMGate 3wp 2796.2022.odt

the petitioner had only appeared for the 5 th Semester Examination. Such

request could be made after appearing for the 6 th Semester Examination.

This was clear from the reading of the Regulations of 2018 as a whole.

Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on the order dated

27.07.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 8658/2016 ( Rajshree Neelam

Tukral Vs. Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education &

Anr.) at the Principal Seat to urge that decisions of academic bodies

ought not to be easily interfered with. The learned Counsel therefore

submitted that there was no merit in the challenge raised by the

petitioner.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we

have perused the documents on records. Regulation RE-8 of the

Regulations of 2018 applicable for the Civil and Rural Engineering

Course being pursued by the petitioner clearly stipulates that after

passing the Final Semester Examination leading to award of Diploma, a

candidate can be permitted to appear for both the Semesters to enable

him to improve his/her performance within a period of one year. The

fact that such facility would be available only after results of the Final

Year Examination are declared is clear from the said Regulations itself in

as much as, such candidate is required to forfeit Certificate of Marks and

award of Diploma granted earlier to which he/she is entitled to after

SMGate 3wp 2796.2022.odt

passing the Final Year Examination. It is also stipulated that the previous

marks obtained in subjects/course other than theory subjects/course

would be carried forwarded. From the aforesaid, it becomes clear that

only after the petitioner appears for the Final Semester Examination

which is the 6th Semester that he would be entitled to seek improvement

on his performance in Semesters 5 th and 6th. On 18.04.2022 when the

petitioner sought permission to improve his performance in the 5 th

Semester Examination he had not appeared for 6 th Semester

Examination. Thus, under Regulation RE-8 of the Regulations of 2018,

the application moved by the petitioner was premature and was rightly

not considered by the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

7. As regards the permission to improve performance in the

Practical Examination is concerned, we find that there is nothing

arbitrary or irrational in Regulation RE-8 of the Regulations of 2018 by

not extending that facility for the Practical Examination. Merely because

such facility is extended in Pharmacy Courses conducted by the

respondent nos. 1 and 2, it would not mean that such facility for

improving the performance in the Practical Examination should also be

extended in Engineering Courses. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 being

responsible academic Authorities conducting the relevant Courses, there

was no reason to doubt their expertise and experience in that field.

SMGate 3wp 2796.2022.odt

Hence the challenge raised by the petitioner of not permitting

improvement of performance to the Engineering students in the Practical

Examination, is neither arbitrary or irrational.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the

challenge raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is thus dismissed

with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

9. It is however clarified that the petitioner would be entitled

to seek improvement in the Theory Examination after having appeared

for the Final Semester Examination / 6th Semester Examination in

accordance with Regulation RE-8 of the Regulations of 2018. The

attempt that the petitioner has taken pursuant to the interim order dated

07.06.2022 shall not be treated as an attempt as such attempt has been

found to be premature under Regulation RE-8 of the Regulations of

2018.

                                (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)        (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)



          Digitally
          signed by
          SANDIP
SANDIP    MAHADEV
MAHADEV   GATE
GATE      Date:
          2022.07.18
          19:12:56
          +0530




                       SMGate