Divyangana Patidar V. Devi Ahilya Vishwavidhyalaya & Another

By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs :-

It is therefore prayed that this petition be allowed with costs and appropriate writ, direction or order be issued against the respondent University

directing them to disclose the actual, exact and correct method of calculation of the GGPA (Graduating Grade Point Average) and also the correct

highest GGPA (Graduating Grade Point Average) of the petitioner. It is also prayed that, if the petitioner will succeed in final result after disclosing the

actual, exact and correct method for that, the respondent University may kindly be directed to award Gold medal to the petitioner and declare her as

topper of her batch.

The petitioner has completed 5 years' Course in the School of law of respondent No.1/University which was having the Semester pattern and 10

Semesters therein. She has completed her 5 years' B.A.L.L.B. Course. She has a grievance is that since she was a brilliant student throughout her

academic career with top performance, therefore, she claims that the highest GGPA(Graduating Grade Point Average) should have been awarded to

her. She stood second and one other student has secured a little more marks (GGPA) than the petitioner, therefore, petitioner doubts correctness of

such Grading. But she noticed that some other student obtained highest GGPA. Her further grievance is that she has been asking to respondent

No.1 to furnish her the correct method of calculation of GGPA, as she is confident that she would succeed in the final result with highest marks.

She prayed that the respondent No.1 be directed to award Gold medal to her and to declare her as Topper of her batch.

According to the petitioner, there are three averages denoted as SGPA, CGPA and GGPA.  S.G.P.A. means “Semester Grading Point

Averageâ€; CGPA means “Cumulative Grading Point Averageâ€Â and GGPA means “Graduating Grading Point Averageâ€. On the basis of

marks obtained, in every subject of each Semester, the students are awarded with Grades. Every grade carries a specific Grade Point and on that

basis, the SGPA is calculated. Then CGPA is calculated by obtaining average of SGPA of every Semester. In the academic career, of each

student, he/she gets 10 SGPAs, 9 CGPAs and finally, as an average of all 9 CGPAs, GGPA might be calculated as per the understanding of the

petitioner. Her grievance is for award of less GGPA than the candidate who was given more GGPA than the petitioner. She has questioned the

award of less GGPA to her on the pretext that she was a brilliant student throughout her academic career and, therefore, she should have been

awarded the higher GGPA.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Clause â€" 9 of Ordinance - 31 and submitted that for a One year Programme,

the Graduating Grade Point Average is determined on the basis of best of 52 Actual Credits plus 8 Virtual Credits totaling 60.  Her contention is

that for 5 years course best credits are 300 whereas the graduation seat submitted by the respondent No.2 as best credits is 260.Â

As per compliance report submitted by the respondent No.1 University, on 4/01/2008, the respondent No.1/University submitted Comparative

Computation Table again taking the best credits as 260 as per  page nos. 7 and 10. which shows that, the comparative computation table

submitted by the respondent No.1 University is not according to Clause â€" 9 of the Ordinance 31 of the respondent University itself.Â

To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner we reproduce Clause â€" 9 of Ordinance 31 which reads as under :-

For a ONE YEAR PROGRAMME, the GRADUATING GRADE POINT AVERAGE is determined on the basis of 52 Actual Credits

PLUS 8 Virtual Credits totaling 60. For a TWO- YEAR PROGRAMME, the GRADUATING GRADE POINT AVERAGE is determined on

the basis of best of 104 Actual Credits PLUS 16 Virtual Credits totaling 120. For a THREE YEAR PROGRAMME, the GRADUATING GRADE

POINT AVERAGE is determined on the basis of best of 156 Actual Credits PLUS 24 Virtual Credits totaling 180 and so on.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the counter reply filed to the compliance report of respondent No.1 University

and submitted that if we calculate the GGPA taking the best credits of 300, the GGPA of the petitioner comes higher than that of the respondent

No.2. She further submitted that if GGPA is calculated taking best credits of 280 as per reply of the respondent no.1 then also the petitioner

comes higher than that of respondent No.2. She has also drawn our attention to the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Abhinav Â

Pandey v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors., decided on 23rd January, 2018 in W.P.(C) No.2028/2016 and prayed that this writ

petition be allowed and the respondent No.1 be directed to declare her first in order on merit.

A detailed reply has been filed by the respondent No.1 as well as by respondent No.2.

According to the respondent No.2, who has secured higher marks than the present petitioner, Clause 4.2 and 6 of Ordinance 31 will be applicable in

the case in question. Clause 4.2 and 6 of Ordinance 31 reads as under :-

4.2 The concerned UTD must workout the Valid Credits for each programme at the rate of 52 Credits per year.

A student will be eligible for degree on completion of 52 VALID CREDITS per year provided he / she does not have F Grade in any of offered

courses.

The stand of the respondent No.2 that due to typographical error in the reply submitted by the University to which the petitioner is trying to create

confusion before this Court in terms of 260 and 280 best credits. The stand of the University that best 260 credits are taken for consideration

which made total of 2322 for the petitioner resulting in 8.93 as GGPA whereas respondent No.2 gathers 2324 resulting in 8.94 as GGPA making her

stand higher to the petitioner. There is no error or dispute in computation tables.

The stand of the respondent No.1 University that CGPA is tabulated after every Semester, but GGPA is computed finally at the end of all

Semester examination. It is a cumulative summation of all the grades. A candidate may be possessing higher CGPA, but that does not imply that

his/her GGPA is higher than others. The computation of GGPA is strictly as per the Ordinance 31 and there is no discrepancy in its process.

A comparative computation table in respect of petitioner and respondent No.2 has been filed. The aforesaid comparative computation table has

been prepared by result section of computer section(Devi Ahilyabai Vishwavidhyalaya), Indore and in particular by the head of computer

section((Devi Ahilyabai Vishwavidhyalaya). Annexure-R/1-A is the result computation of petitioner and Annexure-R/1-B is the result computation

of respondent No.2. The calculation of GGPA is based on 260 best credits. Relevant part of Annexue-R/1-A in respect of petitioner regarding her

calculation of GGPA which is based on 260 best credits reads as under :-

Calculation of GGPA of the petitioner is based on 260 BEST CREDITSÂ as follows:

7A + grades of 5 credits and 10 grade points = 7 * 5* 10 = 350 grade points

1A + grades of 4 credits and 10 grade points = 1 * 4* 10 = 40 grade points

28A grades of 5 credits and 9 grade points = 28 * 5* 9 = 1260 grade points

6A + grades of 4 credits and 9 grade points = 6 * 4* 9Â = 216 grade points

9B + grades of 5 credits and 8 grade points = 9 * 5* 8 = 360 grade points

3B + grades of 4 remaining credits of 8 grade points = 3 * 4* 8 = 96 grade points

Total Grade Points 2322 grade points

GGPA = 2322/260 = 8.930 rounded off to 8.93

Calculation of GGPA of the respondent No.2 is also based on 260 BEST CREDITSÂ as follows:

7A + grades of 5 credits and 10 grade points = 7 * 5* 10Â = 350 grade points

30AÂ grades of 5 credits and 9 grade points = 30 * 5* 9 = 1350 grade points

6 A grades of 4 credits and 9 grade points = 6 * 4* 9 = 216 grade points

10 B+ grades of 5 credits and 8 grade points = 10 * 5* 8= 400 grade points

1 b + grade of 1 remaining credit of 8 grade points = 1 * 1* 8 =8 grade points

GGPA = 2324/260 = 8.938 rounded off to 8.94

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 University Shri Prakash Verma, made a statement at bar that this procedure of calculating best credits

of 260 is going on from the last 10 to 15 years.

The University after applying Clause 4.2 and 6 of Ordinance No.31 prepared the result/computation of petitioner and respondent No.2. The

calculation of GGPA is based on 260 best credits of the petitioner as well as of respondent No.2.

After completing of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner made a prayer that she may be permitted to raise a dispute as per Clause 22

of Ordinance 31 before the Vice Chancellor. As the matter was heard finally and, therefore, no such permission can be granted for withdrawal with

liberty and, accordingly, we reject the prayer.Â

The system of graduating and its accuracy has never been in question from past several years. There remains no apparent errors or

contradictions in the comparative table submitted by the respondent No.1.

In the exercise of power of judicial review, the Court should not refer the matter to court appointed expert as the courts have a very limited role

particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituted to finalize answer key. It would normally be prudent,

wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. Further this Court does not act as Court of Appeal in the

matter of opinion of experts in academic matters as the power of judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision making

process. The court should not under the guise of preventing the abuse of power be itself guilty of usurping power.

Likewise, in the present case the respondent No.1 is a University established under Act who remains an expert in the field and have tried to do

their best in calculation of merit list which needs not to be interfered at this stage. In the interest of justice merely for the satisfaction of the petitioner

who stood behind the respondent No.2.

Therefore, while exercising the power of judicial review, this Court is not to take upon itself the revaluation of Model Answer Key either it self

or through Court appointed Expert, who is none else but a delegate of the Court. The Court in exercise of power of judicial review, if sufficient

material exists to return a finding that Model Answer Key is palpably incorrect that no reasonable person would find the same to be acceptable,Â

than the Court could direct the examining body to re-examine the answer key but cannot take over the function of the Commission in finalizing the

answer key itself.

The scope of interference in academic matters has been examined by the Supreme Court in many cases. In Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh,

(2010) 8 SCC 372 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 640 , the Court held as under:-

“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.â€​

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment reported as University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde, (2013) 10 SCC 519, held

that in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their

hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts the Court . The Court held as under:

“31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued,

the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao

AIR 1965 SC 491; Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University (2001) 8 SCCÂ 546; and, Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (2008) 9

SCC 284, has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is

wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts generally

are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of

teaching, examination and research in the university. For attaining the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any “qualifying criteriaâ€,

which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. The candidates

declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and colleges and the standard of such a

teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges.

UGC has only implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or

discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.â€​

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nitin Pathak vs. State of M.P. & Ors., decided on 4.09.2017 in W.A. No.581 of 2017 held the

following in Para 30 and 31 which reads as under:-

In view of the discussion above, we hold that in exercise of power of Judicial Review, the Court should not refer the matter to court appointed

expert as the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituted to finalize answer key.

It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts.

In respect of the second question, this Court does not and should not act as Court of Appeal in the matter of opinion of experts in academic

matters as the power of judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision - making process. The Court should not under the

guise of preventing the abuse of power be itself guilty of usurping power.

The Full bench judgment of this Court is binding on us and, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench Court in the case of Nitin

Pathak vs. State of M.P. & Ors. decided on 4.09.2017 in W.A. No.581/2017 so also the fact that the University is following Clause 4.2 of the

Ordinance 31Â from last 10 years, rightly calculated best credits of 260 of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and came to the conclusion that the

petitioner has secured 2322 marks i.e. 8.93% whereas respondent No.2Â has secured 2324 i.e. 8.94% and, therefore, rightly declared the respondent

no.2 as Gold medalist in pursuant to the petitioner. No case is made out to interfere with the merit of the decision, we are fully satisfied that the

manner in which the decision was made by the respondent No.1 University. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is, accordingly,

dismissed.  No costs.