Delhi High Court
Raunak Chikara vs University Of Delhi Through Its ... on 23 February, 2022
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: February 23, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 5663/2021 & CM APPL. 17658/2021
RAUNAK CHIKARA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg &
Mr. Siddhartha Patra,
Advocates.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH
ITS REGISTRAR & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber,
Mr.H.S.Tiwari, Mr. Anshuman
Mehrotra, Mr. Harsh Dhankar
& Mr. Nikunj Arora,
Advocates.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks
improvement/correction of his results for the 4 th semester of the B.A.
(Hons.)(English) course [hereinafter, "the course"] in the respondent
No.1- University of Delhi [hereinafter, "the University"].
Facts
2. The petitioner joined the course in the year 2018. The duration
of the course is three years, with each year comprising of two
semesters. This writ petition concerns a notification dated 04.06.2020
[hereinafter, "the notification"], issued by the University in the wake
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner's result for the
4th semester was computed in terms of the notification.
3. The writ petition, as originally filed, sought quashing of the
notification. However, at the very first hearing, i.e. on 02.06.2021, it
was noted that the petitioner's contention was, in fact, based upon an
interpretation of the notification which, according to him, entitled him
to an improvement in his 4th semester results. The petitioner, therefore,
sought leave to amend the writ petition, which was allowed by an
order dated 11.06.2021. The writ petition, as amended, seeks the
following reliefs:
"(1) Quashing the Order / Decision not to take / allow
the improved / corrected / revised CGPA & SGPA of the
Petitioner and the Candidate, which was issued by the
Dean (Examination) of University of Delhi for academic
session 20 19-20.
(2) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to correct 4 th Semester
SGPA to 6.535 from 5.57 on the improved 3rd Semester
SGPA from 3.86 to 5.79 of Petitioner for the Courses for
which the Petitioner applied.
(3) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to correct 2 nd Year
CGPA from 5.68 to 6.165 bases on improved SGPA of 3rd
& 4th Semester for the Courses for which the Petitioner
applied.
(4) Direct the Respondents to take / allow the improved /
corrected / revised CGPA & SGPA of the Petitioner for
the Courses for which the Petitioner applied.
(5) Pass any other or further Order or Orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice and to
meet the ends of Justice."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
4. Upon the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and consequent
disruption in the normal functioning of the University, the University
was required to adopt alternative mechanisms for assessment and
promotion of its students. The notification sought to address this need.
It concerns grading/results of the intermediate semester students for all
courses in the University. The relevant extracts of the notification are
as follows:-
"In view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19
Pandemic, it is notified hereby to all concerned that the
Intermediate semester/term/year students shall be
graded with adopting alternative mode for the same as
conducting examinations for Intermediate
Semester/Term/Year students (second semester/term/ Ist
year and fourth semester/term/IInd year students) in the
conventional mode i.e. pen and paper is not feasible as
per the existing government norms of maintaining social
distancing and safety and health of the students .The
matter was intensively deliberated in the bodies i.e. 'Task
Force constituted by the University in view of Covid-19
and the Working Group on Examinations, based on which
it has been decided that as one-time measure, alternative
mode of grading for promotion/results shall be adopted
as per composite format for calculating the same for the
Intermediate semester/term/year students for the
academic session 2019-2020 so that students of
university can take their career forward.
Students of intermediate semester/term/year. The
grading to the students could be composite of 50% marks
on the basis of the pattern of internal
evaluation/assignment based evaluation adopted by the
university/colleges/faculty/Centre wherever applicable
and the remaining 50% marks can be awarded on the
basis of performance in previous semester/term/year
only.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
For students of intermediate semester/term/year,
having no previous performance i.e. having no marks in
previous semester/term/year, shall be graded on the basis
of 100% assignment based evaluation.1"
5. It is evident from the above that as far as the intermediate
semester students were concerned, the notification provided for their
assessment on the basis of two parameters: (a) marks on the basis of
internal evaluation or assignment, and (b) marks on the basis of
performance in the previous semester/term.
6. The petitioner's marks for his 4th semester were calculated on
this basis. The previous semester which was factored into the result
was the 3rd semester, for which he had taken the examinations in
November-December, 2019. At that stage, the petitioner had achieved
a Semester Grade Point Average [hereinafter, "SGPA"] of 3.86 in the
3rd semester, with an Essential Repeat in one paper because he had not
taken the examination for the said paper. The petitioner's 4th semester
marks were calculated on this basis, and his SGPA for the 4th semester
was declared as 5.57.
7. The petitioner subsequently repeated two papers of the
3rd semester alongwith his 5th semester examinations in January-
February, 2021. The results were declared on 25.04.2021, whereby the
petitioner's 3rd semester results improved from SGPA of 3.86 to 5.79.
He consequently sought re-computation of his 4th semester marks,
arguing that the notification required his improved performance in the
previous semester to be taken into account. This was declined by the
University, leading to the present petition.
1 Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
Submissions
8. Mr. Manoj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
the notification requires the petitioner's 4th semester marks to be
computed inter alia on the basis of his 3rd semester marks. His
3rd semester marks having increased, Mr. Garg submits that the benefit
of the increased marks should be accorded to the petitioner for the
4th semester also. He relies upon a subsequent notification of the
University dated 08.06.2020, which provides for a one-time measure
permitting carrying forward the subject in which the students had
failed for the academic year 2019-20. According to the later
notification, all students were to be promoted to the next semester,
subject to clearing the examinations in which they had failed/remained
absent, when the examinations were next held. The petitioner also
relies upon the promotion criteria stipulated in a notification of the
University dated 23-24.09.2020, which clarified that the notification
dated 08.06.2020 was applicable to all 4th semester students. Mr. Garg
has also drawn my attention to a further notification dated 20.10.2020,
issued by the University, with regard to the delayed submission of
assignments.
9. Mr. Garg submits that, contrary to the stipulation in the
notification characterizing it as a "one-time measure", the University
has, in fact, issued a further notification dated 21.05.2021, adopting a
similar measure for the next academic year, i.e. 2020-21.
10. Mr. Garg relies upon three judgments of this Court in support of
his contentions. In Sanyam Gupta vs. Central Board of Secondary
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
Education2, this Court was concerned with a student who had taken
improvement examination in the Class XII examinations conducted by
the Central Board of Secondary Education [hereinafter, "CBSE"]. The
Court noted that in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CBSE
had formulated an Assessment Scheme which was approved by the
Supreme Court. It was held that these rules also applied to the students
who were appearing in the improvement examination which was being
conducted by the CBSE. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied
upon the earlier judgments of this Court in Nikhil Sharma vs. Guru
Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Anr.3 and Poonam vs. Guru
Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.4, which have also been
cited by Mr. Garg.
11. The submission of Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the
University, on the other hand, is that the petitioner has already been
given the benefit of the notification, according to which his
4th semester marks were calculated. Mr. Chhibber submits that the
notification did not contemplate a further reassessment in the event of
a student taking improvement examinations.
12. Mr. Chhibber further submits that the University also made a
provision for candidates who were not satisfied with their results
calculated in terms of the notification to take a subsequent
examination in the same subject. By a notification dated 21.05.2021,
the University announced that the students who were in their
6th semester (such as the petitioner), would be entitled to appear for
W.P.(C) 4403/2020, decided on 14.08.2020.
W.P.(C) 10612/2017, decided on 15.03.2018.
W.P.(C) 8242/2016, decided on 03.11.2016.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
improvement in the papers of the 4th semester also. Mr. Chhibber
states that the petitioner's remedy, if he was dissatisfied with his result
of the 4th semester examination, would have been to take the
examination pursuant to the notification dated 21.05.2021, which he
has failed to do.
13. Mr. Chhibber distinguishes the judgment in Sanyam Gupta5 on
the ground that the petitioner in that case wanted to appear in the
improvement examination for his Class XII examination, which was
not conducted by the CBSE due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In these
circumstances, the Court applied the same scheme which would have
been applicable to regular examinations taken at the same time.
Mr. Chhibber submits that the judgments in Nikhil Sharma6 and
Poonam7 are inapplicable to this case, as those cases pertain to
candidates who had taken improvement examinations, but their
performance in the improvement examinations was worse than in the
regular examinations. The Court held that in such circumstances, the
result in which the candidate has performed better should prevail.
14. Mr. Chhibber cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Council of Homeopathic System Of Medicine, Punjab and Ors vs.
Suchintan and Ors.8 to submit that the doctrine of "relation back"
would not apply to the supplementary examinations. He also cited the
judgment of this Court in Surbhi Kampani vs. Delhi University and
Supra (note 2).
Supra (note 3).
Supra (note 4).
1993 Supp (3) SCC 99.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
Ors.9 to submit that the result of an improvement examination can
only be prospective.
Analysis
15. The principal question for adjudication is whether the
notification requires the petitioner's 4th semester marks to be
re-computed on the basis of a subsequent improvement in his
3rd semester marks. There is no dispute as to the original methodology
of calculation under the notification. The petitioner's request is
essentially that the 3rd semester marks, which he had later obtained on
improvement, should be factored into the computation of his
4th semester marks under the notification.
16. The University's reading to the contrary, in my view, is not
vulnerable to the interference of the writ court. The scope of
interference with the decision of administrative authorities is limited,
and the writ court is expected to examine the correctness of the
decision-making procedure, but cannot sit in appeal over the decision.
The said principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court inter
alia in W.B. Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim10
and Rachna & Ors vs. Union of India and Anr11. The decision itself is
liable to scrutiny only if it is manifestly arbitrary or perverse, in the
sense that the court comes to a conclusion that no reasonable authority
could have reached the same decision on the basis of the material
placed before it. These principles have been held to be of particular
W.P.(C) 5241/2012, decided on 31.08.2012.
(2019) 18 SCC 39 [Paragraphs 27, 28, 29 and 31].
(2021) 5 SCC 638 [Paragraphs 43 and 45].
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
significance in the case of academic institutions. In Basavaiah (Dr.) v.
Dr. H.L. Ramesh12, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
"38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to
reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the
academic matters, the courts have a very limited role
particularly when no mala fides have been alleged
against the experts constituting the Selection Committee.
It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for
the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and
experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never
make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of
the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its
constraints and limitations in academic matters."
17. The observations in Basavaiah (Dr.)13 have been followed by
the Supreme Court inter alia in a recent judgment in Indian Institute of
Technology Kharagpur and Others vs. Soutrik Sarangi and Others14.
18. In the present case, the petitioner's challenge is not to the
decision-making procedure per se, but to the University's
interpretation of the notification. For the reasons discussed below, I do
not find the University's actions to be arbitrary or perverse.
19. It is important to note that the notification was issued soon after
the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the large-scale
disruption caused thereby, the University was unable to hold regular
examinations or conduct assessments at that stage. It was pressed to
find innovative solutions to a complicated situation, so as to obviate
long-term prejudice to students by extension of their courses. The
requirement, at that stage, was to enable students to proceed with their
(2010) 8 SCC 372.
Supra (note 12).
2021 SCC Online SC 826 [Paragraphs 19 and 20].
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
courses rather than to impede their progress until the regular
examinations could be held. In such unprecedented circumstances, an
element of experimentation was required. The University has taken the
position in its counter affidavit that the notification represented as an
alternative mode of grading as a "one-time measure". The decision to
declare results based on a combination of internal assessments and
prior performance falls within such context.
20. The notification does not expressly provide for the situation in
which the petitioner is placed, inasmuch as it does not deal with an
eventuality in which a student's performance in the prior semester is
subsequently enhanced by way of an improvement examination. The
argument of the petitioner, if accepted, would require the University to
re-compute the intermediate semester scores on the basis of future
performance in past semesters, rather than on the basis of the students'
past performance. In the absence of any indication in the notification
that such a course was contemplated, I do not find any error in the
approach of the University.
21. I am also mindful of the fact that the University gave affected
students an opportunity to participate in a later examination to
improve their scores, if they so wished. As candidates were being
subjected to an entirely novel method of assessment under the
notification, which would not have been within their contemplation at
all, the provision of a remedial opportunity guarded against any
prejudice being caused to them. This was provided in the notification
dated 21.05.2021, whereunder the petitioner could have taken
conventional examinations for his 4th semester papers, along with his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
6th semester examinations. The petitioner, if he was keen to improve
his scores in the 4th semester, could well have availed of this
opportunity, which he chose not to do.
22. The observations of the Supreme Court in Council of
Homeopathic System15 support the case of the University. Although
the question arose in a different context, the Court rejected the
applicability of the doctrine of "relation back" to supplementary
examinations. Upon an analysis of the relevant regulation framed by
the Central Council of Homeopathy, the Court held that a candidate
who has passed a supplementary examination may be declared to have
passed in the examination as a whole but would not be deemed to have
passed in the annual examination held at the end of the year. By
analogy, the petitioner must be given the benefit of his improved
performance in the 3rd semester examination, but cannot claim all the
consequences which would have arisen if he had obtained those marks
at the first instance.
23. I also agree with Mr. Chhibber with regard to the effect of the
three judgments cited by Mr. Garg. In Sanyam Gupta16, the Court held
that a candidate who had registered for an improvement examination
which could not be held due to the COVID-19 pandemic, ought to be
treated at par with the regular students who had registered for the said
examination and assessed on the basis of the alternative assessment
scheme approved by the Supreme Court. This is not the question in the
present case at all. The petitioner registered for the 3rd semester
Supra (note 8).
Supra (note 2).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
improvement examination alongwith his 5th semester examinations.
He has been treated at par with the other students who appeared for
the same examination at the same time, and has also been given the
benefit of the improved results, so far as his 3rd semester SGPA is
concerned.
24. In Nikhil Sharma17 and Poonam18, the candidates were given the
benefit of the higher scores earned by them in the original
examinations when they had performed worse in the improvement
examinations. The petitioner's case is not comparable to those cases,
as he has improved his performance significantly in the improvement
examination, and has been given the benefit thereof.
25. Mr. Garg's reliance on several subsequent notifications is also
misplaced. The notification dated 08.06.2020 deals with students who
failed or remained absent in the intermediate semester. The petitioner
does not fall in that category. The notification dated 23-24.09.2020 is
clarificatory of the fact that it applies to 4th semester students but does
not add anything to support the case of the petitioner. The notification
dated 20.10.2020 deals with the belated submission of the
assignments, and the notification dated 10.12.2020 also appears to
reiterate the contents of various prior notifications of the University.
These notifications do not, in my view, take the petitioner's case any
further.
Supra (note 3).
Supra (note 4).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
Conclusion
26. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the decision of
the University to decline the request of the petitioner for re-
computation of his 4th semester result.
27. The writ petition, is therefore, dismissed. The pending
application, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
PRATEEK JALAN, J.
FEBRUARY 23, 2022
„Bp‟
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:23.02.2022
18:03:38
