Chander Prakash Meena vs Jamia Millia Islamia University
2013 Latest Caselaw 4176 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Judgment reserved on   : 12.09.2013
                                  Judgment pronounced on : 16.09.2013

+ W.P.(C) 8221/2011

CHANDER PRAKASH MEENA                               ..... Petitioner

                       Through:   Mr. H.S. Meena, Adv.

                                   versus

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY                     ..... Respondent

                       Through:   Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

V.K. JAIN, J.

The petitioner before this Court took admission in B.Tech (Civil)

course of the respondent-Jamia Millia Islamia University in August,

2002. The maximum permissible time period for completion of the said

course, as per Ordinance of the respondent-University, is seven years.

The aforesaid duration came to be completed by the petitioner in the year

2009. In the 08th Semester Examination held in the year 2009, the

petitioner got compartment in as many as four papers and failed in one

paper. As per the rules of the University, a student can appear in

compartment examinations in a maximum of four papers. Accordingly,

he appeared in compartment in four papers, i.e., CE 402, CE 404, CE 410

and CE 419, but he was not entitled to appear in paper No. CE 313, in

which he had failed.

2. Vide letter dated 25.10.2009, the petitioner requested the Vice-

Chancellor of the University to give him a chance to appear in CE-313

(Hydrology). He was permitted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University,

to appear in the aforesaid paper, in the first sessional examination in

September, 2010. However, the permission, so granted to the petitioner,

was later withdrawn by the Vice-Chancellor and the withdrawal was

communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 16.06.2011.

Being aggrieved from withdrawal of the permission, the petitioner is

before this Court by way of this writ petition, seeking the following

reliefs:-

"I. Issue a writ of appropriate nature there by directing the respondent to declare the result of paper Hydrology (CE-313) of the VI semester of B.Tech (Civil) conducted by the respondent in Sep.2010, in the interest of justice and if the petitioner declared pass in the above-mentioned paper then the respondent may further be directed to award the degree of the B.Tech (Civil), in the interest of justice.

II. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue directions to the Respondents not to create

any obstacles in availing of the right of education, which is a fundamental right available to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

III. Any other order/direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent in the interest of justice."

3. The respondent-University has contested the writ petition on the

ground that when evaluated result of the petitioner in the sessional

examination held in September, 2010 was brought to the notice of

Controller of Examination, who, noticing that seven years period,

prescribed in the Ordinance for completing the B.Tech course, had

already expired, placed the matter before the Examination Committee

which constituted a three-member committee to review the matter. The

recommendations of the committee, along with comments of the legal

advisor, were placed before the Examination Committee on 20.04.2011.

On the instructions of the said Committee, the Controller of Examination

submitted a note to the Vice-Chancellor for final decision in the matter.

The Vice-Chancellor, noticing that the petitioner had erroneously been

granted permission to participate in the sessional test in the year 2010,

withdrew the permission granted earlier. The decision of the Vice-

Chancellor was endorsed by the Examination Committee in its meeting

held on 13.06.2010. This is also the case of the respondent-University

that any indulgence granted to the petitioner would serve as a precedent

for future and a number of students would start demanding parity with the

petitioner. The University, therefore, submits that the rules which are

statutory in nature need to be strictly adhered to, without any deviation

for any student.

4. The Ordinance of the University being statutory in nature is

binding on the University and all its functionaries, including the Vice-

Chancellor. There is no provision in the Ordinance empowering the

Vice-Chancellor to permit a student who has already completed seven

years in the course to appear in a sessional examination held after

completion of the said period of seven years. No provision in the

Ordinance, permitting the Vice-Chancellor to relax the same, has been

brought to my notice. It is thus evident that the permission granted by the

Vice-Chancellor to the petitioner to appear in the sessional examination

held in September/October, 2010 was clearly ultra vires the Ordinance.

An act, which was ultra vires the powers of the Vice-Chancellor, does not

and cannot bind the University. If the University is made to ratify or

accept a decision which is ultra vires the powers of a functionary, that

may encourage various functionaries of the University, including the

Vice-Chancellor to contravene the provisions of the Ordinance at his will

and pleasure, in order to benefit one or more students. Such an act by the

Vice-Chancellor would be nothing but a gross misuse of his powers and,

therefore, cannot be allowed. The sanctity of the Ordinance, which binds

everyone, including the University and its functionaries, needs to be

maintained irrespective of consequences, so as to prevent any possible

misuse of powers. Even otherwise, it would be necessary to maintain

academic discipline that the University strictly adheres to its rules and

regulations.

5. A perusal of the writ petition would show that in the 5th and 6th

Semester of examination, the petitioner failed in more than 5 papers. In

fact, he was yet to clear backlog of the papers in which he had failed

when he was promoted to the third year in April-May, 2006. In the

examinations held in November-December, 2007 and April-May, 2008,

also the petitioner could not clear all the papers and was declared failed in

a number of papers. In November-December, 2008 and April-May, 2009,

the petitioner was declared failed in four papers of final year and one

backlog paper. It would thus be seen that the petitioner has a very poor

academic record and has regularly been failing in one or more papers.

Having not cleared all his papers within the maximum period prescribed

in the Ordinance, the petitioner has only himself to blame and no benefit

of the permission granted by the Vice-Chancellor to him to appear in the

sessional examination held in September-October, 2010, can be granted

to him.

The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

Crl. M.A. No.13656/2013

List for consideration on 20.01.2014.

V.K.JAIN, J

SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 bg