Ajay Kumar Ramineni vs Iit And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1673 Del

JUDGMENT

Markandeya Katju, C.J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 24.8.2005 by which he has dismissed the writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The facts in detail have been mentioned in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

4. The petitioner appeared in an entrance test and was admitted to the integrated 5 year M. Tech Course in the academic year 2003-2004 in the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (Respondent No. 1). In para 2.7 of the writ petition it is alleged that by letter dated 5.1.2004 the Deputy Registrar of respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that his academic performance at the end of the first semester 2003-04 was reviewed by the Standing Review Committee (SRC) in its meeting held on 23-12-2003. The SRC advised the petitioner to meet the course advisor regularly and report academic progress. It was also stated in the letter that the petitioner should be informed about the possibility of termination of his admission at the end of the first year i.e. after completion of the second semester. However, the petitioner was promoted to the second academic year.

5. Subsequently by letter dated 19.7.2005 the Deputy Registrar of respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that after a review made by the SRC of the academic record of the petitioner at the end of the second semester of 2004-05 (i.e. the fourth semester of the course) the SRC had taken a decision to terminate the registration of the petitioner. By letter dated 22.7.2005/25.7.2005 the Deputy Registrar informed the petitioner that his registration has been terminated and his name has been struck off from the rolls of the Institute, and this decision has the approval of the Chairman and the senate. Against that decision petitioner filed the writ petition which was dismissed and hence this appeal.

6. The petitioner alleged that termination of his registration is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He has also challenged the validity of Regulation 6.1.10 of Chapter 6 of the 2003-04 prospectus of respondent No. 1 and also Regulation 3.9.

7. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent IIT in the writ appeal and we have perused the same. In para 6 of the same it is stated that in the year 1999 an elaborate exercise was undertaken for review of the curriculum of the courses and this was approved by the Senate vide its Resolution dated 29.5.2003. Thereafter a credit system of valuation was made. Each candidate undertaking a professional course was required to secure a minimum prescribed credit in each year, and a particular prescribed total number of credits towards the end of the courses. If any candidate failed to secure the minimum number of credits at the end of each academic year it became apparent that it would not be possible for such candidate to secure the minimum prescribed total number of credits towards the end of the course. In these circumstances the admission of the candidate was terminated as per the norms laid down by the institute. The fundamental rationale of the scheme was to achieve the minimum standard of education and for ensuring that at the earliest possible occasion the candidate concerned was made aware of this position and is not allowed to spend further time in the course which is bound to go waste as towards the end of the course the candidate would not be able to secure the total number of prescribed credits and would not be able to get the degree.

8. In para 16 of the counter affidavit it is stated that when the petitioner failed to secure the requisite credits at the end of the first semester, the SRC of the respondent No. 1 institute reviewed his performance in its meeting held on 23.12.2003 and decided to warn the petitioner of the possibility of termination of his registration if he failed to improve his performance. However despite his poor performance at the end of the first semester the petitioner was given an opportunity to improve his performance and was promoted to the second year.

9. In para 17 of the counter affidavit it is stated that when the appellant failed to improve his performance at the end of the second year and secured only 47.5 credits instead of the required 50 credits the SRC in its meeting held on 15.7.2005 decided to terminate his registration, and this decision was approved by the Senate.

10. It is evident from the record that the petitioner's registration had been cancelled because he did not obtain a minimum of 50 credits at the end of the fourth semester.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had attended a summer course in 2005 but that has not been taken into account by the respondent. Had that been done it would have brought him within the minimum standard of 50 credits.

12. The question, therefore, which arises is whether the respondents were justified in ignoring the credits allegedly earned by the petitioner during the summer vacations.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the difference between the prospectus of the year 2003-04 and that of 2004-05.

14. Clause 6.1.10 of the Regulations and Procedures set down in the prospectus for the year 2003-04 states:

6.1.10 Termination of Registration (due to Unsatisfactory Academic Performance)

The SRC while reviewing the academic performance of weak students would also recommend termination of registration if a student fails to satisfy the minimum academic criteria laid down for continuation as a student at the end of each year (i.e. even semester, excluding summer).

15. As regards the prospectus for the year 2004-05 the relevant part of it states:

3.9 Termination of Registration due to Unsatisfactory Academic Performance

The SRC while reviewing athe academic performance of weak students would also recommend termination of registration if a student fails to satisfy the minimum academic criteria laid down for continuation as a student at the end of each semester.

xxx                  xxx                  xxx
 

2nd year students: A student in general category must complete at least 50 credits at the end of 4th  semester of his/her stay in the Institute, failing which his/her registration would be terminated.    A student in SC/ST category must complete at least 46 credits at the end of 4th semester of his/her stay in the Institute failing which his/her registration would be terminated and no appeal would be allowed.
 

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a vital difference between the prospectus for the year 2003-04 and that of 2004-05. While in the former the credits earned in summer vacations have to be excluded, there is no such provision in the prospectus for 2004-05. Hence, he submitted, it follows that the credits for the summer vacations of 2005 have to be taken into consideration and were wrongly ignored.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following statement in G.P. Singh's 'Interpretation of Statutes', Eighth Edition, p. 245:-

Just as use of the same language in a later statute as was used in an earlier one in pari materia is suggestive of the intention of the Legislature that the language so used in the later statute is in the same sense as in the earlier one, change of language in a later statute in pari materia is suggestive that change of interpretation is intended.

18. In our opinion, we cannot accept this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. It was held by the Supreme Court in Principal, Patna College v. K.S. Raman, :-

".. we think we ought to point out that where the question involved is one of interpreting a Regulation framed by the Academic Council of a University, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue a writ of certiorari where it is plain that the Regulation in question is capable of two constructions, and it would generally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by such authorities on the relevant Regulation appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction which it is pleased to accept ....

19. It may be mentioned that in G.P. Singh's 'Interpretation of Statutes', 8th Edition, page 248 it is stated:-

Change in language is not, however, always indicative of a change in construction, vide Hadley v. Perks, (1866) LR 1 QB 444, p.457; Lawless v. Sullivan, (1881) 6 AC 373, p. 383 (PC); Hopes v. Hopes, (1948) 2 All ER 920, p. 925; Redrow Homes Ltd v. Bett Bros. Plc., (1998) 1 All ER 385, p. 390 (g,h) (HL). The alteration in language in or by a later statute may be the result of many other factors. For instance, words may be omitted in a later statute when they were mere surplusage (vide Madanlal Fakirchand Dudhediya v. S. Changdeo Sugar Mills, ; Bhanupratap Singh (Raja) v. Asstt. Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bahraich, ) and the natural and ordinary meaning of the existing words indicates no intention of alteration of meaning, vide Redrow Homes Ltd v. Bett Bros. Plc. (supra). Similarly addition of words may be to make clear a meaning which was already implied, vide Chandrika Prasad Tripathi v. Shiv Prasad Chanpuria, ; Mohamed Quasim Larry v. Mohomed Samsuddin, ; Kajari Lal Agarwala v. Union of India, ; Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, . Further, the change in wording may be because the draftsman wanted to improve the style, vide Hopes v. Hopes, (1948) 2 All ER 920, p. 925. Referred in State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam, .

Hence it is not correct that change in language always means change in intention.

20. It is well settled that in academic/educational matters Courts should be reluctant to interfere vide Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, , J. P. Kulshreshtra v. Allahabad University, , University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, , etc.

21. As held in K.S.Raman's case (supra) if two interpretations of a regulation framed by an academic body are possible, the Court should accept the interpretation given by the said academic body. In the present case, the interpretation of Clause 3.9 of the prospectus for the year 2004-05, as taken by the management of the Indian Institute of Technology, is that the credits during the summer vacation are not to be taken into consideration. This Court should not, in our opinion, interfere with this decision.

22. The appellant had failed to secure the necessary credits at the end of first semester in the first year, and the SRC of the Institute reviewed his performance in its meeting held on 23.12.2003 and decided to warn the appellant of the possibility of termination of his registration if he failed to improve his performance. Despite that warning he has failed to improve his performance at the end of the fourth semester and secured only 47.5 credits instead of the required 50 credits. The SRC in its meeting held on 15.7.2005 decided to terminate the registration of the appellant. The decision of the SRC to terminate the appellant's registration was approved by the Chairman of the Senate. In the decision of the Chairman of the Senate dated 18.7.2005 the names of other candidates, who had not secured the minimum 50 credits and whose registration had been terminated, have been mentioned. In the case of those candidates also summer credits had not been included. Thus, there is no discrimination against the appellant.

23. This Court should give respect to the stand taken by the respondent that summer credits cannot be included for computation of the minimum 50 credits to be achieved on the completion of the fourth semester. The Court should defer to the opinion of the experts in such academic matters. We see no violation of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution. We also see no invalidity in the impugned Regulations.

24. It may additionally be noted that Clause 6.1.10 in the Prospectus for 2003-04 relates to termination of registration if the student fails to meet the minimum academic criteria at the end of each year. This has been explained in parenthesis as the end of an even semester but before the summer. On the other hand, Clause 3.9 in the Prospectus for 2004-05 has reference to termination of registration at the end of each semester. There is, therefore, a conscious departure in the language used necessitating deletion of the words 'even semester, excluding summer'.

25. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed.