Amit Rahi vs Jawahar Lal Nehru University & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 290 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Date of decision: 17th January, 2013

+                               LPA No.805/2012

      AMIT RAHI                                           ..... Appellant
                         Through:      Mr. Asutosh Lohia with Ms. Neelam
                                       Sharma & Ms. Abha Verma, Advs.

                                    Versus

    JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS..... Respondents

Through: Mr. S.C. Dhanda & Ms. Sagari Dhanda, Advs. for JNU.

CORAM :-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 13.08.2012 of

the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.7018/2011 preferred

by the appellant. The counsel for the respondent University appeared on

advance notice and with consent of the counsels, the appeal was heard

finally at the admission stage and judgment reserved.

2. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was preferred

impugning the denial by the respondent University to the petitioner of

direct admission to Ph.D (Biotechnology) programme commencing from

the year 2011 on the ground of the appellant not meeting the eligibility

condition therefor.

3. The eligibility condition which according to the respondent

University, the appellant did not meet was of having obtained "Masters

Degree with FGPA of 6.00 in the 10 point scale / comparable standard or

equivalent percentage." According to the appellant, he meets the said

eligibility condition.

4. The appellant has completed his Masters (M.Sc. in Biotechnology)

also from the respondent University with an CGPA score of 5.59. It is his

case that the CGPA secured by him of 5.59 is on a 9 point scale and if the

same is to be equated on a 10 point scale, he meets the eligibility

condition of FGPA of 6. He, in this regard relies on the prospectus of the

respondent University for the year 2011-12, which under the heading

"School of Life Sciences" and under the Sub-Heading "M.Sc. (Life

Sciences)" inter alia provides that the final evaluation of the students

admitted to the said course "for the grades is on a 9 point scale CGPA".

According to the appellant the comparable standard or equivalent

percentage of CGPA of 5.59 on a 9 point scale is above the FGPA

requirement of 6 on the 10 point scale. Further reliance in this regard is

placed on the copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Academic

Council of the respondent University obtained through the medium of

Right to Information Act, 2005, containing the Resolution "to approve the

Grade „B‟ in the 10 point scale as equivalent to 55% in the percentage

system." Yet further reliance is placed on the „Ordinance Relating to

Award of M.A./M.Sc./B.A. (H) and B.A. (P) Degrees‟ wherein „grade‟ is

defined as "meaning a letter grade assigned to a student on the basis of

evaluation of a course on the ten point scale". It is the contention of the

appellant that 5.59 out of maximum of 9 points is equivalent to 6.25 on a

10 point scale or 62%. It is yet further contended that other Universities

follow the grading system on a scale of 1 to 10 points instead of 0 to 9

point as followed by the respondent University and thus while the

students evaluated on a 10 points scale secured a minimum of 1 mark as

against the students evaluated on a 0 to 9 point scale who can secure a

minimum of 0 marks. It is contended that 0 cannot be equated to 1.

Reliance is placed on State of Kerala Vs. Kumari T.P. Roshana AIR

1979 SC 765 for the need for uniformity of standards.

5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition from which this

appeal arises with reference to the Ordinance of the respondent

University, providing that a student shall be graded on a 10 point scale

i.e. from 0 to 9 and providing for the Grade A+ as equivalent to grade

point of 9, Grade A as equivalent to grade point of 8, Grade A- as

equivalent to grade point of 7, Grade B+ as equal to grade point of 6,

Grade B as equivalent to grade point of 5, Grade B- as equivalent to

grade point of 4, Grade C+ as equivalent to grade point of 3, Grade C as

equivalent to grade point of 2, Grade C- as equivalent to grade point of 1

and Grade F as equivalent to grade point of 0. It was held that the

appellant cannot derive any advantage from the fact that the grading had

been done out of 9 point as Grade 1 to 10 is equivalent to Grade 0 to 9

and thus it cannot be said that 5.0 on a scale of 9 is equivalent to 60 or 6

points out of 10. The appellant was thus held to be not meeting the

eligibility criteria.

6. We may reiterate that the Masters Degree of the marks wherein the

appellant is seeking equalization is also from the same University in

which the appellant is seeking admission in the Ph.D programme. The

academic authorities of the respondent University are the best judge to

decide whether the CGPA of 5.59 secured by the appellant is equivalent

to the FGPA of 6 on a 10 point scale and the scope of the Court

interfering with such decisions on academic matters of the academic

experts of the University is limited. The case of the appellant is not of

victimization or of the respondent University wanting to admit another

for oblique motives. The only ground of challenge is, the decision of the

University being arbitrary and whimsical. However, the concerned

Authorities of the University, not only while making the selection but

even on challenge being made by the appellant in the writ petition and in

this appeal have taken a consistent stand that the equalization as sought to

be done by the appellant is not valid. The Registrar of the respondent

University in the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition has taken a

categorical stand that Clause 8.4 of Academic Ordinance 15 of the

respondent University provides that "the students shall be graded in each

course on a 10 point scale". It is the contention of the University that 0 to

9 is also a 10 point scale.

7. We are unable to hold the decision of the respondent University, of

the appellant being not eligible for admission, to be so arbitrary or

whimsical, so as to invite interference by this Court. Resultantly, the

appeal fails and is dismissed.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE JANUARY 17, 2013 „gsr‟