AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—In these petitions the petitioning students are agitating to go to the 3rd, 5th and 7th Semesters of B.E. Course. The illustrations (a), (b) and (c) of OB 7.2 are coming in their way. The provisions contained therein are extracted hereinbelow:
"OB 7.2 .............
a. A candidate seeking eligibility to 3rd semester should not have failed in more than 4 heads of passing of first and second semesters taken together.
b. A candidate seeking eligibility to 5th semester should have passed in all the subjects of 1st and 2nd semesters and should not have failed in more than 4 heads of passing of third and fourth semesters taken together.
c. A candidate seeking eligibility to 7th semester should have passed in all the subjects upto 4th semester and should not have failed in more than 4 heads of passing of 5th and 6th semesters taken together."
Dr. S. Armugham, learned counsel for some of the petitioners submits that they have failed in one or two subjects by a whisker. He submits that some of them have secured higher marks in revaluation, though they have not passed and that therefore they are seeking the challenge revaluation.
He submits that earlier the students had the benefit of valuation, re-totalling, revaluation, challenge valuation, challenge revaluation, the issuance of the soft copy, etc. By issuing the notification, dated 27.09.2013 the provision for challenge revaluation was deleted. He submits that the said notification has come into force in December 2013/January 2014. He has two folded objections to the said notification. The Regulations cannot be changed by the issuance of the notification. They can be changed only by bringing in an amendment in a manner known to law. The second objection is that the changed Regulations cannot be given retrospective effect. At the most they can be made applicable only to those students who have taken the admission after 27.09.2013.
In support of his submissions, he relies on this Court''s order, dated 26.11.2014 passed in W.P. No. 47662/2014. He pointedly brings to my notice para 14 of the said decision which is extracted hereinbelow:
"14. Hence, with the above clarifications and the benefit to be granted to the students who had been admitted to the course prior to 2011 and who have approached this Court, these petitions stand disposed of."
Sri M.V. Charate, learned counsel for some of the petitioners submits that the petitioners in W.P. No. 47662/2014 and other connected petitions were indeed admitted in 2012, as is evident from the cause title of the petition.
Sri E.S. Indiresh, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the Government submits that this Court''s interference may not be warranted in the academic matters. Whether there has to be challenge revaluation or not is to be left to be decided by the academicians, educationalists and experts in the field. He also submits that in view of this Court''s order, dated 26.11.2014 passed in W.P. No. 47662/2014, the benefit of challenge revaluation may be extended to the present petitioning students.
Sri T.S. Venkatesh, the learned counsel for the respondent VTU in some petitions submits that the VTU''s Regulations Governing Academic Programs provided for the challenge revaluation between 2003 and 2011. By its notification, dated 30.12.2011, the VTU withdrew the challenge revaluation for the students admitted during the academic year 2011-12 and onwards. He also brings to my notice Regulation No. VIII of the Regulations Governing Issue of Soft Copy and Revaluation of Answer Scripts 2013. It reads as follows:
"VIII. With the introduction of these regulations, challenge valuation/challenge revaluation facility provided for the students is withdrawn. Hence, there will be no challenge valuation/challenge revaluation."
He submits that it is the understanding of the VTU that this Court''s order, dated 26.11.2014 passed in W.P. No. 47662/2014 would apply to those students who are admitted prior to 2011.
Sri Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, the learned counsel appearing for VTU in some cases submits that the amended Regulations would be applicable for the students admitted in 2011 and onwards. He submits that only such of the students who are admitted prior to 2011 are entitled to seek the challenge revaluation.
The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The only question that arises for my consideration is whether the students admitted for the academic years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 are entitled to seek the challenge revaluation?
My perusal of the notification, dated 30.12.2011 reveals that it contains the guidelines or instructions. The notification itself cannot be treated as amendment to the Regulation. Nothing is placed on record to show that the said guidelines and instructions have fructified themselves into the amendment of the Regulation. The notification does not even say which Regulation is modified, deleted and inserted.
Subsequently the Regulations styled as Regulations Governing Issue of Soft Copy and Revaluation of Answer Scripts 2013 are framed. They are published in the notification, dated 27.9.2013. Regulation No. II states that they supersede all the earlier Regulations in respect of photocopy of answer scripts, revaluation, challenge valuation and challenge revaluation. It is with the commencement of the said Regulation (27.9.2013) that 2003-04 Regulations stand superseded. Its natural corollary could be that the students admitted prior to 27.9.2013 are entitled to seek the challenge revaluation.
In more or less similar circumstances, this Court, by its order, dated 26.11.2014 passed in W.P. No. 47662/2014 and other connected petitions, permitted the students admitted in 2012 to avail of the benefit of challenge revaluation.
I therefore allow these petitions by passing the following order:
(i) The petitioning students, who have admitted prior to 27.9.2013 are entitled to seek the challenge revaluation. They are permitted to file the applications for challenge revaluation. The applications already filed by the petitioners, if any and the applications to be filed by the petitioners pursuant to the passing of this order shall be considered as per the Regulations, which were governing the field between 2003 and 2013.
(ii) If any petitioning student is admitted after 27.9.2013, he is not entitled to seek the challenge revaluation.
(iii) The petitioners'' eligibility to go to third, fifth and seventh semester would obviously depend on the result of the challenge revaluation.
(iv) Even if the petitioners happen to pass in the challenge revaluation, they are not permitted to go to the next semester as a matter of right. The University and the College shall examine their attendance requirement. Only on satisfying that they have paid the prescribed fees and they meet the prescribed attendance requirement, they are to be permitted to go to the next semester.
(v) The challenge revaluation shall be done as per the procedure in vogue.
(vi) Until such time that the results of the sought challenge revaluation are announced, the petitioners are permitted to prosecute their studies and appear for the forthcoming examinations. But everything would be subject to the outcome of the challenge revaluation. If they fail in the challenge revaluation, they shall not plead equity.
No order as to costs.