AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Motilal B. Naik, J.—In these three writ petitions, a common question is being agitated by all these petitioners and therefore, these three writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.
All these petitioners claim that they were all candidates for B.A., B.Com. and B.Sc. and other faculties graduating themselves under the New Scheme Syllabus which was in vogue from 1980 onwards. From the year 1987-88, the respondent-University had introduced a Common Core Syllabus regulations for degree students as a result of which the pattern of syllabus and subjects were changed from that of New Syllabus Scheme in which the petitioners studied. It is stated by these petitioners that though the New Scheme Syllabus ceased to be in force from the academic year 1987-88 consequent upon the introduction of Common Core Syllabus, students who were graduating themselves under the new Scheme Syllabus were allowed to complete their backlog subjects under the New Scheme Syllabus. These petitioners appeared as private candidates and completed few subjects. It is stated that in the year 1992, the respondent- University issued notification stating that the New Scheme Syllabus is no more available to the old students enabling them to complete the backlog subjects and it was intimated that those who are interested to complete graduation were asked to appear in the left-over papers according to the Common Core Syllabus. It is stated that the introduction of Common Core Syllabus is without notice to these petitioners and similarly placed students. It is alleged that if the introduction of the Common Core Syllabus had been given wide publicity, petitioners-like students would have completed their graduation according to the New Scheme Syllabus and would have obtained their degrees. The petitioners are prevented from completing their back-logs under the New Syllabus Scheme, which they allege to be violative of the principles of natural justice. In the year 1994, the second respondent issued a notification on 24-6-1994 which appeared in various news papers intimating the candidates that who have failed to complete their back-logs, were required to repeat their degree course if they are intending to do so as fresh candidates and the last date of payment of fees and receipt of examination applications were fixed as 25-7-1994 and the date of examination was fixed as 14-9-1994. Petitioners allege that the decision of the respondent-University to implement the Common Core Syllabus with effect from September 1994 has put these petitioners to a lot of inconvenience and they contend that the respondent-University should have given sufficient notice and some more chances for the petitioners-like students to complete their back-logs as per the New Scheme Syllabus.
It is seen from the docket order that Writ Petition No. 15920/94 was admitted by this Court on 8-9-1994 and notices were directed in the said writ petition. W.P.M.P. No. 27973 of 1994 came up for consideration before this Court and this Court by an order dated 10-2-1995 issued interim direction to the respondent-University to receive the examination fee by 20-2-1995 and to permit the petitioners to appear for the examinations that were likely to be held on 15-3-1995 in the back-log subjects. The respondent-University has filed vacate petition in W.P.M.P. No. 427/95 in the said W.P.M.P. No. 27973 of 1994. When the vacate petition came up for consideration, at the request of the Counsel appearing in this writ petition and the connected two writ petitions on the similar point filed by different Counsel, these writ petitions are heard together and are now being disposed of.
The respondent-University filed a counter in the above said vacate petition and the same is being adopted in all the writ petitions. On the principal question whether the action of the respondent-University intimating the old students that in the September, 1994 examinations, the back-log papers according to New Scheme Syllabus are not permitted to be cleared by such of those candidates who have been imparted coaching under the New Scheme Syllabus. It was pointed out that from September 1994 examinations onwards, the Common Core Syllabus would be enforced and such of those students who have not cleared certain papers according to the New Scheme Syllabus are to appear and clear off such papers according to the Common Core Syllabus only. It is also stated in the counter that the respondent-University has introduced a new system known as Common Core Syllabus with effect from 1987-88. The main difference between the New Scheme Syllabus and Common Core Syllabus is that under New Scheme Syllabus, students are required to have one main subject with two ancillaries in the group. Whereas under the Common Core Syllabus, all the three subjects in the group are treated equally. Under the New Scheme Syllabus, in the main subject, there used to be three papers and in the ancillary subjects, there used to be two papers. Whereas in the Common Core Syllabus, all the three subjects have two papers each. The common core syllabus has been introduced keeping in mind the importance of the subjects and change in the education policy.
It is categorically stated in the counter that after the introduction of common core syllabus, the candidates studied under the New Scheme Syllabus were given chance to appear and complete all the back-logs if any upto the academic year 1991, that is to say, though the common core syllabus being adopted in the University from the academic year 1987-88 enabling such of those students who are studying under the New Scheme Syllabus, sufficient time was allowed to them upto the academic year 1991 for clearing the back- logs. A letter to that effect was also addressed by the respondent-University to all the respective principals on 19-3-1990 for giving wide publicity. In the same letter, it is stated that those candidates who fail to complete the course under New Syllabus Scheme in October, 1991 will not be allowed to appear for the back-logs under the New Syllabus Scheme. It is stated that the respondent-University has taken sufficient care in giving wide publicity and it amounts to sufficient notice.
It is stated that some students made representation to the respondent- University expressing their difficulty to study the entire degree course again under the Common Core Syllabus, and basing on the representation the respondent-University has equated subjects under the New Syllabus Scheme and Common Core Syllabus. The respondent-University has also appointed three member committee to suggest the last chance that could be given to such of those students who had prosecuted their studies under the New Syllabus Scheme. The Committee recommended that the last chance that could be given to the candidates under the New Syllabus Scheme to write examination upto March, 1994. Accordingly, tine respondent-University has given last chance to the candidates under the New Scheme Syllabus to pass the examination upto March, 1994. It is further stated that the respondent-University also issued notification on 10-1-1994 which was published in all leading daily newspapers including Eenadu and Udayam. In the said notification it was made clear that the last chance would be of March, 1994 for the candidates who studied under the New Syllabus Scheme to complete their backlogs. In this background, the respondents have come forward before this Court by contending that though the change in the academic system has been brought about in the respondent- University from the academic year 1987-88 onwards under the Common Core Syllabus, in order to facilitate such of those students who were studying degree course under the New Scheme Syllabus, sufficient time was given to them to complete their back-logs upto March, 1994. In this background, the respondent- University contends that there is no violation, much less, any discrimination meted out to these petitioners and therefore, the respondents sought dismissal of these writ petitions.
In the wake of these submissions, the following points arise for consideration before this Court?
(1) Whether the petitioners-like persons had sufficient opportunity to clear off their back-log papers according to the New Scheme Syllabus on account of the introduction of the Common Core Syllabus by the respondent-University?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek a declaration setting aside the notification dated 24-6-1994 issued by the respondent-University requiring the petitioners to undergo examinations in degree courses as fresh candidates according to the Common Core Syllabus as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear for their back-log papers under the New Syllabus Scheme?
The educational institutions are governed by certain system. The Universities are entitled to bring about certain changes in the academic curriculum. These changes would of course, be subjected to approval by the Supreme Body i.e., Academic Senate constituted in this behalf. The respondent- University authorities in the interest of the student community at large thought it fit to introduce a different system which is beneficial to the student community, from the academic year 1987-88, which is known as Common Core Syllabus. The main difference between the New Scheme Syllabus and the Common Core Syllabus is that under New Scheme Syllabus, students were required to have one main subject with two ancillaries in the group. Whereas under the Common Core Syllabus, all the three subjects in the group are treated equally. Under the new Scheme Syllabus, in the main subject, there used to be three papers and in the ancillary subjects, there used to be three (sic. two) papers. Under the Common Core Syllabus, all the three subjects have two papers each. This system is introduced keeping in view the interests of the student community at large to meet the changing demands in education.
It is seen from the counter filed by the respondent-University that though the change in the system was introduced from the academic year 1987-88, these petitioners including similarly-placed students were permitted to complete their back-log papers at graduation level according to New Scheme Syllabus upto October, 1991. It was also intimated to all the colleges that the students who fail to clear their backlogs by October, 1991 would only be permitted to writ examinations under Common Core Syllabus. However, it seems that many students made representation to the respondent-University expressing their difficulties to study the entire degree course under Common Core Syllabus. In order to mitigate the hardships being faced by such students, the respondent- Univeristy promptly equated the subjects under the New Scheme Syllabus and Common Core Syllabus. The University has also appointed a Committee to suggest ways and means as to how long the petitioners-like students could be permitted to appear under the New Scheme Syllabus. The Committee recommended to give last chance to the students to appear under the New Scheme Syllabus in the examination which was to be held in the month of March, 1994. Sufficient instructions were also issued intimating all the colleges about the last opportunity that could be available to old students under the New Scheme Syllabus to clear off their back-logs. The University has also given publicity about this fact through news papers also.
The main grievance of the petitioners is that they have no sufficient time to clear off their back-logs as per the New Scheme Syllabus, in my view, seems to be not realistic. When the change in the system is introduced from the academic year 1987-88, at the first instance the petitioners had sufficient time to clear off their backlogs according to the system in vogue, upto October 1991. Thereafter, on a representation by various students, the University has equated the subjects under the New Scheme Syllabus and Common Core Syllabus. Thereafter, the University has also constituted a Committee to suggest the time that could be given to the old students to complete their back-logs. The said Committee suggested that the students under New Scheme Syllabus could be permitted to dear off their back-logs upto March, 1994. In this background, I am of the view, the petitioners cannot have any grievances. After all, the Supreme Body, i.e., the Academic Senate has taken into consideration the interests of the student community and brought about a change in the system and once a decision is taken by the said body, and moreover, when the petitioners were given sufficient time to complete their back-logs, the petitioners cannot have any grievances against the said change in the academic curriculum. The Standing Counsel for the respondent-University has also placed before this Court the entire record pertaining to the introduction of the Common Core Syllabus. The record discloses that the Academic Senate has also approved the introduction of the Common Core Syllabus. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to say that the introduction of Common Core Syllabus is not approved by the Academic Senate, nor the petitioners could make a hue and cry by contending that they had no notice. After all, each student cannot be given individual notices. Either the University or the College cannot maintain the addresses of every student who failed to complete his graduation. General circulars would be issued by the University which would be intimated to all the colleges and the college authorities in turn place the same on their respective notice boards. In this case, change in curriculum has been notified and the last chance to clear off the backlogs were also intimated through notification. The petitioners had sufficient time to clear of their backlogs. In this background, I am of the view, the submission that the petitioners had not been given sufficient time to clear off their backlogs and they have no knowledge about the change is not acceptable to this Court.
As discussed above, I am not persuaded to hold that the petitioners had no opportunity to clear off their backlog papers according to the New Scheme Syllabus and as such, the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted to them. I, therefore, do not see any merits in these writ petitions and accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs.
The benefit of the interim direction granted by this Court on 10-2-1995 in W.F.M.P. No. 27973 / 94 consequent upon which the petitioners were permitted to appear for the examinations which were held from 15-3-1995 in the backlog subjects, could no longer be available to the petitioners in the wake of dismissal of these writ petitions. I am of the view, the petitioners cannot run away with the benefits granted by this Court in an interlocutory application in a case of this nature. By virtue of the dismissal of these writ petitions, the benefits granted to the petitioners in the interlocutory application i.e., W.P.M.P. No. 27973/94