Randhir Singh Sagar And Anr. vs Administrator Of Delhi And Ors.
1991 Latest Caselaw 618 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

(1) Rule D.B.

(2) By a common judgment, we propose to dispose of both these writ petitions because same question of law is involved in both of these writ petitions.

(3) The Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Delhi, Administration, Delhi, runs Diploma course in engineering and non-engineering subjects in Polytechnic at various institutions.

(4) The Diploma in engineering is a three-years course for regular students and four-years course for part-time students, conducted by different Polytechnic/Institutes in Delhi which are affiliated to the Board of Technical Education. The Board of Technical Education, Delhi Administration, has its own constitution and set of rules for purposes of admission and examination or the study of technical courses, including Diploma and post-Diploma courses in engineering and non-engineering and certification and award of Diplomas and post-Diplomas in the said courses. The petitioners in the instant case applied for and granted admission in May, 1987 in Polytechnic. Petitioners joined the 4 years Diploma level (part-time evening) course in engineering. According to the rules governing the petitioners, the first year of the three year diploma course is to be cleared within three years and the entire course in six years from the date of admission.

(5) The relevant rule governing the controversy involved in the instant case is set out as under. Rule 16.6(ii) of the aforesaid rules reads as under : "A student admitted for any diploma/trade Diploma/post Diploma certificate/course will be required to clear the first year/Ist and 2nd semester pattern within a period of three years. No carry over of any paper or semester will be allowed beyond a period of 3 years and a student who fails to clear the 1st year or 1st and 2nd semester examination both, will not be allowed to continue the course and will not be permitted to take any examination of the Board for the course. The period of three years shall be irrespective of any reason for not taking the examination, or detention on the basis of shortage of attendance/sectional or cancellation/disqualification from exam. adopting unfair means."

(6) That about 112 students belonging to different disciplines of Engineering (Regular and Part time) failed to complete the first and second semester within the stipulated three years time after having been admitted in the first year in June/July, 1987. Though the said students were promoted to the next higher semester as per the provisions of the revised promotion rules, however, they were still required to complete the first and second semester within a period of three years. As they had failed to clear the first and second semester within the stipulated 3 years time, they were not eligible to appear in any further examination being conducted by the Board of Technical Education nor they were eligible to continue to be students of the Polytechnic where they were studying after declaration of results of the examination held in May, 1990.

(7) 112 students faced with the situation of getting out of the courses, made a representation to the Chairman of the Board of Technical Education for a mercy chance and the Chairman was pleased to accord one mercy chance to appear in the examination scheduled in December, 1990 January, 1991, subject to the condition that the students would give an undertaking not to request for any further chance. The said undertaking was to be countersigned by the parents and duly recommended by the Principal of the Polytechnic, where the said students were studying. This was clearly an extra indulgence shown to the 112 students on humanitarian consideration.

(8) That out of the said 112 students, 36 students again failed to pass all the subjects of the first and second semester (first year of the programme) even in the mercy chance given to them, and, therefore, their names were stuck off the rolls of the Institute after declaration of result pertaining to the examination held in December, 1990/January.l991. Stricking off the names of the said students was strictly in conformity with the said Rules. The petitioners who approached this Court are amongst those 36 students who have failed to pass all the subjects of the first and second semesters within the stipulated time of three years and failed even in the mercy chance given to them. Their principal grievance is that it was not specifically mentioned in the prospectus for the academic sessions 1987-88, 1988-89 or 1989-90 that the students would have to clear the first year of the 3-year Diploma course within three years. Repudiating the argument of the petitioners, Mr. Mahajan appearing for the respondents pointed out that it was clearly mentioned in the prospectus that the rules of the Board would be applicable in case of examination and decision and any student could obtain a copy of the Rules from the office of the Institute where he was studying. The petitioners were fully aware of the rules that they were required to clear 1st year of 3-years course within a period of 3 years failing which, their names would be struck off.

(9) The petitioners had 3 years to clear the 1st year examination. In three academic sessions consisting of six semesters, the petitioners could not clear the examination and even in that mercy chance, these petitioners could not pass the examination. Now, the respondents in these circumstances are left with no option but to strike off the names of the petitioners and others similarly placed according to rules. The petitioners had given a representation to the Chairman, to reconsider his decision. The representation was considered and rejected by the Chairman of Board of Technical Education.

(10) We have heard at length the counsel for the parties. The relevant rule governing the controversy is Rule 16.6(ii) which has already been set out above. The Rule clearly mentions that no carry over of any paper or semesters will be allowed beyond a period of 3 years and a student who fails to clear the 1st year or 1st and 2ad semester examination both, will not be allowed to continue the course and will not be permitted to take any examination of the Board for the course, Admittedly, all these students could not clear 1st year (1st and second semester examination) in 3 years. The petitioners have also understood the Rules in the same perspective and after having failed to clear 1st year examination in 3 years, they made a representation to the Chairman of the Board of Technical Education for a mercy chance and the Chairman was pleased to accord them one mercy chance to appear in the examination scheduled for December, 1990/January, 1991, subject to the condition that the students would give an undertaking not to request for any further chance. The said undertaking was countersigned by the parents and duly recommended by the Principal of the Polytechnic, where the said students were studying. We have carefully examined Rule 16.6(ii) and other rules. In our opinion, rules are neither arbitrary nor unjust and unreasonable.

(11) In the instant case, the respondent have been indulgent, compassionate and lenient to the petitioners by giving them a mercy chance. Any more indulgence or leniency would be at the cost of academic discipline and excellence. The academic interest of the Institution has to be protected, otherwise, such courses would be rendered totally meaningless and irrelevant.

(12) After having examined all the facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are dismissed. However, we do not make any orders as to costs.