Sandeep Thukral & others vs Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar & others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in WPMS No.2382 of 2018 is taken on record.

All the petitioners before this Court are students of first year in B.Tech course in Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology,

Pant Nagar. The University has held all of them to be disqualified for admission in the third semester i.e. in the next academic year. The reason being

that in each case the petitioners have failed to clear in more than two subjects, and hence they have been asked to repeat the first year.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, would argue that the Regulations which are presently in force stipulate that in case a

candidate has got less than 6.0 cumulative grade point average then they were categorized as candidates for academic probation and in their report

card it is marked as “APâ€​, which would mean that they would be entitled to clear these subjects in the third and fourth semesters.

Learned Senior Counsel for the University Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, on the other hand, would argue that as per the Regulation of Conduct of

Examination of the University, a candidate can be allowed to have a compartment examination in the next semester only if he has failed to clear two

or less than two papers but since in each of the present cases, admittedly the petitioners have failed to qualify in more than two subjects, they are not

entitled for compartment. Petitioners are not being removed from the University, but they only have to repeat the first year. Though this would mean a

loss of one year for them.

Petitioners, on the other hand, would also argue that the University which is primarily an agriculture University and initially it was only imparting

education in the agriculture sciences. As far as technical education is concerned, the University shall be governed by the Regulations framed by the

AICTE where the cut-off marks is 40 percent and SGPA is 5.00 and not 6.00 as fixed by the University.

The contention of the respondents that General Regulations are also applicable to the B.Tech students is also again contested by the petitioners

inasmuch as the Regulation on conduct of examination do not state that it is applicable to B.Tech students as well. The Regulations read as follows:-

“(As recommended by VCI/ICAR and approved by the Academic Council for BVSc & AH/BSc Agriculture/BSc Forestry/BSc Home

Science/BSc Fisheries degree programme)â€​

Learned Senior Counsel for the University, however, contested this argument of the petitioners and has also filed a counter affidavit in one of the

cases i.e. WPMS No.2382 of 2018 saying that the resolution of the Academic Council of the University dated 13.07.2016 and all subsequent

resolutions have been made applicable for the B.Tech course, and therefore, it is also applicable in the present case as well.

It is an admitted case of the respondents that these resolutions of the Academic Council of the University have not been incorporated in the

Regulations in the present case and the Regulations on conduct of examination do not show that it is also applicable for the B.Tech course.

Be that as it may, another argument of the petitioners is that they were always under the impression that in case they are not able to clear a

particular subject, they will get another chance. In fact, report cards were given to the petitioners for the second semester, which clear state that they

are on “academic probationâ€, where it is marked as A.P. This fact is also admitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the University, though he

would argue that this is merely a clerical mistake and no mileage can be given to the petitioners.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

Prima facie, the contention of the petitioners that they have always considered themselves that they were governed by the AICTE Regulations

and as such they would be treated as such. Meaning thereby that they should be allowed for compartment examination in the third semester appears

to be prima facie correct.

In view of the above, an interim mandamus is hereby issued to the respondents to give a provisional admission to the petitioners in third semester

by giving them a chance to appear in the compartment examination to clear the subjects in which they have failed in first and second semesters.

However, it is made clear that the above relief shall be subject to the final determination in the writ petitions.

Let a detail counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within a period of three weeks.

List this case after three weeks in the daily cause list. Interim relief applications stand disposed accordingly.

Let a certified copy of this order be given today itself on payment of usual charges.