Delhi High Court
Ghalib Zeyad vs Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors on 5 August, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 9878/2018 & CM APPL. 38484/2018
GHALIB ZEYAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Vedanta Varma,
Ms.Mannat Sandhu and
Mr.Akhil Kumar Gola, Advs.
versus
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS..Respondents
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, SC for JNU
with Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Mr.
Kushal Kumar and Mr. Praveen
Singh, Advs.
Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Adv.
for UGC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
% 05.08.2019
1. The petitioner is a student, who aspires to pursue the M.Phil.
programme with the Jawaharlal Nehru University (Respondent No.1
herein and referred to, hereinafter, as "JNU"). He is visually impaired,
suffering from 100% blindness in his right eye and 50% blindness in
his left eye.
Facts
2. One may commence the recital of the relevant facts, in the
present case, with the clearing, by the petitioner, of the first year of his
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) Examination, from the Maulana Mazharul
Haque Arabic & Persian University (hereinafter referred to as
"MMHAPU") with 52.4% marks. Thereafter, there was a hiatus in the
petitioner‟s studies, owing to his physical limitations, and it was only
in the monsoon semester of 2014 that the petitioner could migrate,
from the MMHAPU to the B.A. (Hons.) (Persian) programme
conducted as part of the integrated five year M.A. programme, by the
JNU. Needless to say, prior thereto, he obtained the requisite
migration certificate from the MMHAPU.
3. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that the five year
integrated M.A. programme conducted by the JNU - as is the case that
several such five year programmes conducted by institutions,
including, inter alia, five year programmes relating to law - is
essentially an amalgam of a three year B.A. (Hons.) programme
followed by a two year M.A. programme. Both the said programmes,
together, constitute the "five year integrated M.A. programme".
4. On successful completion of three years of joining the said
integrated five year M.A. programme, a student becomes entitled to be
awarded a B.A. (Hons.) degree, and would also be eligible to seek
registration in the first year/first semester of the M.A. programme -
which would effectively be the fourth year, and seventh semester, of
the integrated M.A. programme.
5. The petitioner joined the third semester of the integrated M.A.
programme (which would also be the third semester of the B.A.
(Hons.) programme) in the JNU, in the monsoon semester, 2014.
6. The petitioner successfully cleared the first six semesters, of the
integrated five year M.A. programme, the sixth semester being cleared
by him in May, 2016. He, therefore, became entitled to the award of
B.A. (Hons.) degree, as well as for registration for the "balance" two-
year M.A. programme. Pursuant thereto, in July, 2016, the petitioner
registered himself in the first semester of the M.A. programme (in
Persian).
7. One may, at this stage, again digress from the recital of facts, to
explain in brief, the manner in which points and grades, as well as
"Grade Point Averages" ("GPAs") are awarded to students pursing
programmes such as the integrated M.A. programme of the JNU.
8. The earlier existing system of awarding marks stands
substituted, in most educational institutions, with a system of credits
and GPAs, i.e., the Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) and the
Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA). In order to understand the
essential features of this scheme, one may usefully refer to the first
semester of the M.A. programme undertaken by the petitioner himself.
9. Each semester requires the student to attempt various courses,
and each course is awarded a course number. At the discretion of the
institution concerned, one or more of the courses, required to be
undertaken by a student during any particular semester, may be treated
as a "non-credit" course, which would mean that the credits applicable
for the said course would not count towards the total number of credits
achieved by the student, and the grades awarded to the student, for the
said course, would not count towards his SGPA, or CGPA. In the case
of the petitioner, by way of example, the "Persian World
(Contemporary)" course, was, in the first semester of his M.A.
programme (i.e. the seventh semester of his integrated M.A.
programme), treated as a non-credit course. Though, therefore, the
petitioner was awarded credits and grades, for the said course as well,
these credits and grades were not factored in, while assessing the total
number of credits awarded to the petitioner, or his SGPA, or CGPA.
The credits achieved by the petitioner, and his SGPA and CGPA in the
said semester were, therefore, computed on the basis of the remaining
five courses undertaken by the petitioner.
10. Another important feature of the above system of allocation of
credits and GPAs is that credits are awarded solely on the basis of the
number of courses undertaken, irrespective of the performance of the
student therein. In the case of the petitioner, therefore, for example,
there being five "credited" courses in the first semester of his M.A.
programme, if he undertook all the five papers, he would be entitled,
to twenty credits. His SGPA, or CGPA would, however, depend on his
performance in the course, for which he would be graded, as grade
points are awarded as per the grades awarded for any particular
course. Clause 8.4 of Ordinance 15(A) of the Ordinances relating to
the award of M.A./M.Sc. degrees, governing the JNU, provides for the
grade points to be awarded, against specific grades, and reads thus:
"8.4 . The students shall be graded in each course on a 10
point scale, that is:
Grade Grade Point
Note: 1. There shall be no rounding off of SGPA/
CGPA/ FGPA
2. The SGPA/CGPA/FGPA obtained by a
student shall be out of a maximum possible 9
points."
("FGPA", it may be noted, refers to "Final Grade Point Average", for
the computation of which the Ordinance provides a detailed formula.
To adjudicate, and appreciate the merits of, the controversy in issue,
however, it is not necessary to allude to the said formula.)
11. The total grade points awarded, on the basis of the grades
granted to a student against each of the "credited" courses, is divided
by the total number of credits, in order to work out the SGPA/CGPA.
The SGPA, it may be mentioned, refers to the GPA for that particular
semester, whereas the CGPA refers to the GPA for all semesters
undertaken till then.
12. At this juncture, at the cost of some repetition, one may
reproduce, in extenso, clauses 7 and 8, as well as their various sub-
clauses, of Ordinance 15(A), thus:
"7. Credit requirements:
7.1 Ordinarily a course shall be given in prescribed
number of contact hours a week to be decided by the
faculty of the concerned Centre and the credit for these
courses shall be as follows:
„C‟ level courses 2 credits
„B‟ level courses 3 credits
'A' level courses 4 credits
Provided that the Board may, on the recommendation of
the Centre, allot less or more credits to a particular case.
7.2 The actual credits requirement for Master‟s Degree
shall be prescribed by the Centre concerned.
Provided that it shall not be less than 64 credits.
Provided further that Students who are admitted to the
Master's programme besides earning 64 credits shall also
be required to clear two extra non-credit course.
Provided that the requirement of clearing of extra non-
credit courses may be relaxed by the Board of the School
in the case of a student or a group of students.
7.3 (a) Normal load of a student in Social Sciences
and Natural Sciences in each of the semesters shall
be of 16 credits.
(b) A student with the permission of the
Centre/School concerned may be allowed to carry
additional load over and above the normal load
prescribed in clause 7.4 (a) above provided that
the additional load shall not exceed 50% of the
credits/courses a student is normally expected to
cover in a semester.
Provided further that the Centre/School may in
exceptional circumstances permit the student a load
50% less than a normal load in a semester.
7.4 A student shall not be permitted to offer a course if
he/she has not previously cleared a course(s) prescribed
as a pre-requisite for the former.
8. Evaluation
8.1 The system of evaluation for each course shall be
laid down by the Board of the School on the
recommendation of the centre concerned.
8.2 For courses having a semester examination,
sessional work shall carry the same weightage as the
semester examination.
8.3 The pattern and schedule of sessional work for
each course of a semester shall be prescribed by the
Board of the School, on the recommendation of the
Centre concerned and shall be made known to the
students at the commencement of each semester.
8.4. The students shall be graded in each course on a 10
point scale, that is:
Grade Grade Point
Note: 1. There shall be no rounding off of SGPA/
CGPA/ FGPA
2. The SGPA/CGPA/FGPA obtained by a
student shall be out of a maximum possible 9
points.
The Final Grade Point Average obtained by a student
shall be classified into following divisions:
FGPA Class/Division
8.5 and above High First Class
7.5 and above but less than 8.5 Middle First Class
6.5 and above but less than 7.5 Lower First Class
5.5 and .above but less than 6.5 High Second Class
4.5 and above but less than 5.5 Middle Second Class
4.0 and above, but less than 4.5 Lower Second Class
8.5 A Student shall be deemed to have cleared a course
only if he/she has participated in the sessional work and
has secured an overall grade higher than 'F' in that
course (for courses having no end semester examination)
or has participated in the sessional work and appeared in
the end semester examination (for courses having
semester examination) and secured a weighted grade
higher than 'F' in that course. A student who fails in a
course either by not participating in the sessional work
and thereby securing an Overall grade of 'F' (for courses
having end semester examination) or consequently being
not eligible to appear in the end semester examination or
by absenting from appearing in the end semester
examination or by failing to secure a weighted grade
higher than 'F' (for course having end semester
examination), shall be required to repeat that course or
clear another similar (core or optional, as the case may
be) course in lieu thereof.
8.6 A student who secures a grade higher than 'F' in a
course may be permitted by the Centre, keeping in view
its academic constraints, to improve his/her grade by
repeating that course once, subject to proviso of Clause
8.5 of the Ordinance.
Provided further that a student who wants to repeat a
course to improve his/her performance shall be allowed
to do so only if he/she surrenders his/her earlier grade in
the course by 16th August in case of the Monsoon
Semester courses and by first February in case of Winter
Semester courses. Having surrendered his/her earlier
grade by due date, it will be his/her repeat performance
in the course which will be taken into account to compute
the SGPA and the CGPA. His/her transcript will however,
reflect appropriately both the performances and the fact
that he/she repeated the course/courses.
xxx xxx xxx
8.8 Examinations shall be conducted under the
directions of the Dean of the School/Chairperson of
Specialised Centres.
8.9 A student can take part in the curricular
programme for the Master's Degree of the University to a
maximum of six semesters excluding the period of zero
semester(s) granted to him/her by the University.
8.10 Examiners or Board of Examiners shall be
appointed for each course by the Board of the School, on
the recommendation of the Centre concerned.
8.11 An application for admission to the semester
examination shall be made in the prescribed form and
forwarded to the ,Dean of the School through the Head of
the Centre concerned and shall be accompanied by the
following, certificates:
i) Participation in sessional work;
ii) Clearance of all dues."
(Emphasis supplied)
Each of the courses, undertaken by the petitioner during his "balance"
two-year M.A. programme, it may be noted, was an „A‟ level course
and, therefore, carried four credits.
13. Clause 12 of Ordinance 15(A) contains a power of relaxation
vested in the Academic Council of JNU, and reads as under:
"Notwithstanding what is contained in the Ordinance, the
Academic Council may, in exceptional circumstances and
on the recommendations of the Centre/Department and
Board of Studies of the School as well as on the merits of
each individual case, consider at its discretion and for
reasons to be recorded relaxation of any of the provisions
except those prescribing CGPA/FGPA requirements."
14. One may now return to the recital of facts.
15. As already noted hereinabove, in first semester of his M.A.
course (i.e., seventh semester of the integrated M.A. course), the
petitioner had to undertake six courses, of which five were credited,
and one was a "non-credit" course. Undertaking all the courses in the
said semester would, therefore, contribute to the achieving, by the
petitioner, of twenty credits. His SGPA, or CGPA (which, in view of
the fact that it was the first semester of his M.A. program, would be
equal), would be determined on the basis of the grades awarded to him
against each of the said courses.
16. The petitioner undertook his first semester examination of the
M.A. course in November/December, 2016.
17. In January, 2017, the petitioner registered himself for the
second semester of his M.A. course, even while the result of the first
semester was awaited. In the second semester, the petitioner had four
credit courses, with four credits attributed to each, working out to a
total of 16 credits.
18. In February, 2017, the JNU announced the result of the first
semester of the M.A. course undertaken, inter alia, by the petitioner.
On the basis of the grades awarded to him, in each of the courses in
the said semester, the petitioner obtained an SGPA (and CGPA) of
6.4, with 20 credits.
19. In April/May, 2017, the petitioner undertook the second
semester examination of his M.A. course.
20. In July, 2017, the petitioner registered himself for the third
semester of the M.A. programme. While so registering, the petitioner
also applied for repeating one of the courses of the first semester, in
order to improve his result. Each of the courses carried four credits,
thereby working out to 20 credits in the third semester, of which
sixteen were attributable to the four courses of that semester, and four
credits were attributable to the one repeated course of the first
semester.
21. In August, 2017, the second semester results, of the M.A.
course being undertaken by the petitioner, were declared by the JNU.
The petitioner obtained an SGPA of 5.5, with a CGPA, over the first
two semesters, of 6.0, with sixteen credits (as there were four courses
in the said semester).
22. In November/December, 2017, the petitioner gave the third
semester examination of the M.A. course.
23. On 5th January, 2018, while the results of the said third semester
examination were awaited, the petitioner registered himself for the
fourth semester of the M.A. course, which involved four courses. The
petitioner applied, simultaneously, for repeating the four courses of
his second semester, in order to improve his performance.
24. A reading of clause 7.3 of the Ordinance 15(A) (supra), reveals
that a student was permitted only to carry an additional load, over and
above the normal load prescribed for any particular semester, up to a
maximum of 50% of the credits/courses to be undertaken for that
particular semester.
25. As the petitioner was required to undertake four courses in the
fourth semester of the M.A. course, each of which carried four credits,
he could, as per Clause 7.3(b), have applied only for repeating two of
the papers of his second semester, i.e., up to a maximum of eight
credits.
26. The application, of the petitioner, for being permitted to repeat,
with the four courses of his fourth semester, all four courses of his
second semester was, therefore, clearly in violation of Clause 7.3 (b)
of Ordinance 15(A).
27. The writ petition pleads that the petitioner was unaware of this
stipulation, and applied for repeating all the four courses of his second
semester in ignorance of the Ordinance position. The petitioner,
however, points out that the JNU, too, overlooked, possibly by way of
inadvertence, the mandate of clause 7.3(b), by registering the
petitioner for all four repeat courses of his second semester, along with
the four courses of his fourth semester.
28. The Registration Form, it is pointed out, was filled up by the
Section Officer of the Centre for Persian & Central Asian Studies
(CPCAS) of the JNU, as the petitioner was visually impaired, and the
petitioner merely appended his signature thereon. This registration
form was, subsequently, approved and signed by the Chairman of the
CPCAS, who forwarded the form to the Controller of Examination,
who also accepted the same.
29. This resulted, therefore, in the petitioner standing registered, in
the fourth semester, not only for the four courses of that semester, but
also for the four "repeat" courses of his second semester, working out
to a total of eight courses, carrying 32 credits.
30. The petitioner, therefore, submits that, if his application was not
in accordance with Clause 7.3(b) of Ordinance 15(A) (supra), there
was successive overlooking, of the mandate of the said clause, by the
respondent as well, firstly, by the Section Officer of the CPCAS,
thereafter, by the Chairman of the CPCAS, and finally, by the
Controller of Examinations.
31. The blame for this lapse, if at all, cannot, therefore, it is sought
to be pleaded, be laid entirely at the doors of the petitioner, especially
in view of the petitioner‟s visual impairment.
32. The result of the third semester of the M.A. course, being
undertaken by the petitioner, was declared by the JNU in February,
2018. The petitioner acquired an SGPA of 7.0 therein, with a CGPA
of 6.1. As he had, by then, undertaken 13 courses, he had earned a
total of 52 credits.
33. It is averred, in the writ petition, that, at this stage, a colleague
of the petitioner informed him that his application, for permission to
repeat all the four courses undertaken by him in the second semester
of his M.A. programme, was in violation of Ordinance 15(A),
whereupon the petitioner contacted the Section Officer who had filled
in the registration form, who informed him that the registration form,
which was improperly filled, would be rejected, and not processed, by
the computer system. As such, the petitioner decided to abide by the
grades and credits obtained by him in the second semester
examination. It is averred that, reassured thus, the petitioner did not
appear in the four papers of the second Semester examination, as he
was under the impression that his application therefor, being irregular,
would not be processed.
34. The fourth semester examination of the petitioner‟s M.A. course
was conducted between fourth April, 2018 and 3rd May, 2018.
35. On 4th May, 2018, the petitioner addressed a representation to
the Rector of the JNU, requesting that his registration, for repeating
the papers of the second semester, be cancelled and the grades and
credit points originally awarded to him in the said semester, as per the
result announced in August, 2017, be taken into account. This
representation was rejected by the Evaluation Branch of the JNU vide
the impugned communication, dated 6th June, 2018, on the ground that
such restoration of the previous grades was not permissible in view of
Clause 8.6 of Ordinance 15(A) (supra).
36. The petitioner represented, thereagainst, to the Vice-Chancellor
(VC), on 18th July, 2018.
37. In July, 2018, the result of the fourth semester of the M.A.
programme undertaken by the petitioner was announced by the JNU.
The petitioner was, unfortunately, awarded „F‟ for all the four repeat
courses of his second semester, as he had failed to appear therein. He,
therefore, obtained an SGPA of 3.37, and a CPGA of 5.35, as the JNU
evaluated the petitioner on the basis of thirty two credits in the fourth
semester, but granted him 0 (zero) credit points for the four courses of
his second semester, treating his original credits earned, as having
been surrendered and, as he had not appeared in the repeat courses, his
entitlement, for these credits, against the said courses, to be „Nil‟.
38. As a result, though the petitioner, in fact, appeared in all the 17
courses of his M.A. programme, he was given only 52 credits instead
of 68, treating him as having appeared only in 13 courses. The
petitioner was treated as never having appeared for the four courses of
the second semester of his M.A. programme, on the reasoning that (i)
by applying for permission to repeat the said four courses, along with
the four courses of his fourth semester, the petitioner had surrendered
the credits, as well as the grades, originally earned by him for the
second semester, as per the result announced in August, 2017, and (ii)
as he failed to appear for the four courses of the second semester of
the M.A. program, along with the four courses of his fourth semester,
he was not entitled to any credits or any grade, against the said four
courses of his second semester.
39. This rendered the petitioner ineligible for being awarded M.A.
degree as per Clause 7.2 of the Ordinance 15(A) (supra), which
requires a minimum of 64 credits for the award of the said degree.
40. It is important to note, here, that the handicap of the petitioner,
insofar as the award of the M.A. degree was concerned, was only in
respect of the total number of credits earned by him, and not with
respect to his GPA. Clause 9.2 of Ordinance 15(A) required the
petitioner to obtain a CGPA of 4.0, in order to be entitled for the
award of his M.A. degree, the prescribed CGPA being 4.0. It is
relevant, in this context, to note that, even for admission to the M.Phil.
programme conducted by the JNU, general category candidates were
required to score a CGPA of 5.0 in their M.A. programme, which is
relaxed to 4.5 in the case of physically handicapped candidates. The
petitioner‟s CGPA was, in fact, above the minimum CGPA even for
general category candidates, as he had scored a CGPA of 5.35, even
on the basis of the 13 courses undertaken by him in the first, third and
fourth semesters of the M.A. programme, i.e., even if one were to
exclude the four courses of his second semester. Where the petitioner
fell short, of the prescriptions, for the award of M.A. degree, was in
the number of credits earned, which would correspond to the number
of courses undertaken by him. As the petitioner was treated as never
having appeared in the four courses of his second semester, he was
denied the 16 credits available against the said four courses. As a
result, he scored only 52, instead of 68 credits, which fell short of the
minimum of 64 credits, required to be earned by a student in order to
entitle him to an M.A. degree (as per Clause 7.2 of Ordinance 15 (A)
supra).
41. The petitioner, in the circumstances, addressed yet another
representation, on 2nd August, 2018, to the Rector, JNU, which was
forwarded by the Chairperson of CPCAS to the Dean of Examination
recommending that a sympathetic view be adopted, considering the
petitioner‟s physical limitations and financial condition. The said
representation, too, however, was rejected by the Registrar
(Evaluation), on 7th August, 2018.
42. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has invoked the
extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, by means of the present writ petition, praying
for quashing and setting aside of the rejection, by the Evaluation
Branch of the JNU, of the petitioner‟s representation on 6th June, 2018
(supra), as well as the subsequent order, dated 7th August, 2018
(supra), passed by the Registrar (Evaluation), and for restoration of
the grades and GPA originally obtained by the petitioner in the second
semester of his M.A. programme, as declared in August, 2017.
43. The petitioner, who has cleared the requisite entrance
examination for pursuing his M. Phil. programme with the JNU, has
been unable to register for, or obtain admission to, the said course, for
want of the requisite M.A. degree issued by the JNU. He, therefore,
prays for issuance of directions, to the JNU, to retain a seat, for him, in
its M. Phil. programme.
44. Counter affidavits, in response to the writ petition, have been
filed by the JNU, as well as University Grants Commission (U.G.C.).
Rival stands
45. I have heard Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned Senior counsel on behalf
of the petitioner as well as Ms. Monika Arora, appearing for the JNU.
46. Written submissions have also been filed by both parties.
47. The rival stances, as canvassed by the petitioner and the JNU
before me, may be captured thus.
48. Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Sibal reiterates the
contentions advanced in the writ petition, and draws especial attention
to clause 7.3(b) of Ordinance 15(A) (supra), which specifically states
that a student, with the permission of the Centre/School concerned,
may be allowed to carry additional load over and above the normal
load prescribed for the oncoming semester. There was no absolute
right, therefore, conferred on a student, to opt for any additional load,
such right being necessarily conditioned by grant of permission by the
school/centre concerned.
49. Mr. Sibal would seek to contend, therefore, that the CPCAS
could not merely act as a post-office to transmit the application form
of the petitioner, but had necessarily to apply its mind thereto.
50. In that view of the matter, Mr. Sibal would submit that very
registration of the petitioner, for the four repeat courses of the second
semester had to be treated as invalid, and void ab initio. If such
registration was invalid ab initio, it is submitted, the failure, on the
part of the petitioner, to sit for the said repeat courses, was
inconsequential, and could not result in any evisceration of the
original grades obtained by the petitioner in the second semester
results, as announced in August, 2017.
51. The petitioner has also questioned the validity of the reliance
placed by the JNU on Clauses 5.4, 8.5 and 8.6 of the Ordinance 15(A)
(supra) submitting that these clauses would apply only in the case of a
valid registration.
52. As a fallback argument, Mr. Sibal also relies on Clause 12 of
Ordinance 15(A) (supra), which permitted relaxation of the various
conditions in the Ordinance, in an exceptional case. The case of the
petitioner, Mr. Sibal would seek to convince this Court, had
necessarily to be treated as exceptional, especially in view of his
physical limitations, despite which he had excelled in his academic
pursuits.
53. Ms. Monika Arora, arguing per contra, would submit that the
case of the petitioner would clearly be hit by the Ordinance 15(A)
(supra), which resulted in the surrender by a candidate, who went in
for improvement, of his earlier grades. She also draws attention to the
fact that, as per Clause 5.4 of the Ordinance 15(A)(supra), the
deadline for dropping of any course, by the petitioner, was 17th
February, 2018. Clause 5.4 of the Ordinance 15(A)(supra) may, for
ready reference, be reproduced thus:
"5.4 No student shall be allowed to add a course or
substitute a course for another course later than three
weeks from the date of commencement of the semester.
A student wishing to drop a course must do so as early as
possible in no case later than six weeks from the date of
commencement of the semester."
54. No request for withdrawal of the permission, sought by him,
for repeating the four courses of his second semester, having been
made by the petitioner within the prescribed six week period stipulated
in Clause 5.4 of Ordinance 15(A)(supra), and no request having been
made, by the petitioner, to the Evaluation Branch of the JNU, for
retention of the original second semester grades obtained by him,
within the said period, Ms. Monika Arora would seek to submit that
the petitioner has, unfortunately, missed the bus.
55. In the circumstances, she would seek to submit that the JNU
cannot be faulted in any manner for having treated the petitioner as
failed in the four courses of his second semester, not having appeared
for the same, and, therefore, having been awarded only 52, instead of
68 credits.
Analysis
56. Having heard the learned counsels at length, and having applied
myself to the facts and the law, it is obvious, to me, that the petitioner
is bound to succeed, for the simple reason that the law cannot permit
the punishment of a citizen, for failing to act in a manner proscribed
by the law itself.
57. The petitioner, and the respondent, are ad idem, that, in view of
the proscription contained in Clause 7.3 of Ordinance 15(A) supra, the
petitioner could not have repeated, with the four courses of the fourth
semester of his M.A. programme, the four courses earlier attempted by
him in his second semester in April/May, 2017 (the results of which
were announced in August, 2017). Per sequitur, the petitioner could
not be treated as having failed, in the said four courses of his second
semester, merely because he failed to appear in the said four courses,
along with the four courses of his fourth semester. As the petitioner
could not, in view of Clause 7.3 of Ordinance 15(A) supra, have
possibly re-appeared in the four courses of his second semester,
originally undertaken by him in April/May, 2017, his failure to so
reappear cannot result in his being visited with an „F‟ grade in the said
four courses, forfeiting the credits earlier earned by him at the end of
his second semester.
58. Clause 7.3(b) of Ordinance 15 (A) (supra) specifically
prohibited the carrying of additional load, by a student, in excess of
50% of the credits/courses normally expected to be covered in a
semester. Any application, for carrying additional load in excess of the
said stipulation of 50% would, therefore, be void ab initio, being in
violation of Clause 7.3(b). The mere fact that, by inadvertent oversight
or otherwise, the authorities, i.e., the Section Officer and the
Chairperson of the CPCAS, and the Convener of the Examination
Committee, failed to notice this proscription, and registered the
petitioner for repeating all the four courses of his second semester,
could not have legalised his application, or entitled him to appear in
all the said four courses, in violation of Clause 7.3(b).
59. In this context, there is substance in Mr. Sibal‟s contention that
the entitlement, of the petitioner, to re-appear in any of his earlier
courses, was, by virtue of Clause 7.3(b), conditional on grant of
permission, therefor, by the Centre/school concerned. Even if the
petitioner had inadvertently, or erroneously, applied for permission to
re-appear in all the four courses earlier undertaken by him, in his
second semester, in April/May, 2017, it was the responsibility of the
authorities including, inter alia, the Chairperson of the CPCAS, to
decide the two courses, which the petitioner could be permitted to re-
attempt. In registering the petitioner, for re-attempting all the four
courses of his second semester, the authorities in the CPCAS acted in
a clearly illegal manner. Two conceivable options were available, to
the authorities, when the petitioner applied for permission to re-
undertake all the four courses of his second semester. They could
either have rejected the application outright, or, possibly, permitted the
petitioner to appear in two of the said four courses, which would have
resulted in adherence to the 50% limit prescribed by Clause 7.3(b).
They, however, did neither; instead, they registered the petitioner for
re-appearing in all the four courses of the second semester of the M.A.
programme. This was a course of action which was not open to the
respondents. The respondents having, therefore, pursued the said
course - perhaps by inadvertence or oversight - in violation of the
interdiction contained in Clause 7.3(b) of Ordinance 15(A), the
petitioner could not be made to suffer for not having followed it up
and appeared in all the four courses, which would, in turn, have
resulted in his infracting Clause 7.3(b) of Ordinance 15(A) supra.
60. Though the petitioner would be entitled to succeed even on the
above reasoning, the reliance, by Mr. Sibal, on Clause 12 of
Ordinance 15(A) is also well taken. The said Clause empowered the
Academic Council to, in exceptional circumstances, on the
recommendations of the Centre/Department and keeping in mind the
merits of each individual case, relax any of the provisions, except
those relating to the CGPA/FGPA requirements. It has already been
noted, hereinabove, that, even if the four courses of the second
semester of the petitioner were to be excluded from consideration, the
petitioner, nevertheless, fulfilled the required CGPA stipulation, to
entitle him to be awarded an M.A. degree. The objection of the JNU
was, essentially, regarding the number of credits earned by the
petitioner. This number stood artificially reduced from sixty eight, to
fifty two, because of the exclusion of the four courses undertaken by
the petitioner in the second semester of his M.A. programme, in
April/May, 2017. The reduction was "artificial", because the petitioner
had, in fact, appeared in, and undertaken, the said four courses, but the
said appearance, an undertaking of the courses, by the petitioner, were
deemed to have been surrendered, by the JNU, by operation of the
proviso to Clause 8.6 of Ordinance 15(A) (supra). In my considered
opinion, the very invocation of the said proviso, to Clause 8.6, was
completely misconceived. By its very nature, the proviso to Clause 8.6
could not have permitted something which stood prohibited by the
other Clauses of Ordinance 15(A). Even on its plain reading, the
proviso would apply only in a situation in which the desire, of the
student, to repeat his earlier course/courses, to improve his
performance, was permissible under Ordinance 15 (A). If the desire of
the student was itself in contravention of the Ordinance, there could,
quite obviously, be no question of operating the proviso to Clause 8.6,
or of deeming the student to have surrendered his or her earlier grade,
thereunder. The surrender, by the petitioner, of the grades, and the
credits, obtained by him in the four courses of his second semester, as
undertaken in April/May, 2017, could, quite obviously, only be
consequential on the petitioner being permitted, by the Ordinance, to
repeat the said four courses, in order to improve his performance.
Inasmuch as Clause 7.3(b) of Ordinance 15(A) could not permit the
repeating, by the petitioner, of the four courses of his second semester,
the proviso to Clause 8.6, equally, could not apply so as to deem the
petitioner to have "surrendered" the grades, or the credits, originally
obtained by him in the said four courses, as declared in August, 2017.
61. In the circumstances, Clauses 5.4 and 8.5 of Ordinance 15(A),
on which Ms. Arora places reliance, are also obviously inapplicable.
62. Before parting, it may be noted that the accomplishments of the
petitioner, as set out in the writ petition, to which the respondents offer
no denial, clearly indicate that the petitioner is academically gifted,
and has, by dint of perseverance and hard work, overcome his physical
limitations. The word "handicapped" has, with the passage of time,
revealed itself to have been a malapropism all along, and persons who
suffer from unfortunate physical limitations are now, more
appropriately, recognised as being merely "challenged". We see, every
day, persons overcoming such challenges, thrown in their way by an
unhappy providence, and excelling. The stage of integration of such
persons into the mainstream of society, is long past; it only remains,
now, for us to recognise that such persons are a part of our society,
and one that is essential, and inalienable. Visual impairment,
particularly, is, ever so often, conquered, without allowing it to stand
in the way of the "impaired" from scaling the heights of her, or his,
chosen profession. A notable example of such an achiever is available,
with us, even in this very Court.
63. In times such as these, therefore, the attitude, that the JNU has
chosen to adopt, while dealing with the case of the petitioner, can only
be characterised as woefully anachronistic.
Conclusion
64. For the above reasons, the writ petition succeeds, and is
allowed. The impugned rejection, by the Evaluation Branch of the
JNU, of the petitioner‟s representation, on 6th June, 2018, as well as
the subsequent order, dated 7th August, 2018, passed by the Registrar
(Evaluation), are quashed and set aside. The original grades, and the
GPAs, worked out on the basis thereof, as obtained by the petitioner in
the second semester of his M.A. course, undertaken by him in
April/May, 2017, the results of which were announced in August,
2017, stand restored. Inasmuch as, by such restoration, the petitioner
would be entitled to be awarded the M.A. degree in Persian, the JNU
is directed to do so, forthwith and without further delay. The petitioner
would also, consequently, be entitled to pursue his M.Phil. programme
with the JNU, which is, accordingly, directed to grant the petitioner
admission to a seat in the said programme.
65. In view of the fact that the JNU is an academic institution of
excellence and repute, I refrain from awarding the costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
AUGUST 05, 2019
dsn/r.Bararia
