Saurabh Singh vs Govind Ballabh Pant University Of Agriculture And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2393 of 2018 dated 26.10.2018.

The appellant herein is among the several petitioners in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2397 of 2018 and batch, all of whom had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that they be promoted to the second year B.Tech Course, despite their having failed in more than two papers in the B.Tech first year examination, and having again failed in the compartmental examination held thereafter.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that, pursuant to the interim order passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2487 of 2018 and batch, the petitioners were permitted to approach the University; the University had considered the writ petitioner's case, and had rejected their claim on the ground that they had already been allowed to appear in the compartmental examination; since they have failed to qualify in the said examination, no relief could be granted to them; the writ petitioners were given an opportunity to clear the subjects, but they had again failed in some of the subjects; and they had, therefore, to repeat the first year as there was no provision under the existing Rules, or even under the old Rules, under which the writ petitioners could be given the benefit as was being sought in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after taking note of the submissions of Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, that indulgence had already been shown to the students in permitting them to appear in the compartmental examination, and there was no provision in the Rules permitting them to attend the second year B.Tech classes even without passing the first year examination and the compartmental examination.

Before us Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, would submit that, unlike the 2013 Regulations which provide for a student to be detained in the first year if he does not pass in all the subjects either in the main examination or in the compartmental examination, there are no such Regulations applicable to B.Tech students; and, in the absence of any such Regulations having been framed, the respondent-University was wholly unjustified in detaining the writ petitioners in the first year merely because they had failed in the first year main and compartmental examinations. Learned counsel would seek a mandamus from this Court to direct the respondents to frame Regulations for B.Tech students; and, till such Regulations are framed, to permit the writ petitioners to attend the second year B.Tech classes.

On the other hand Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-University, would submit that the writ petitioner's claim of absence of Regulations is incorrect; Regulations have been framed, and are in force in the University; and these Regulations prescribe that, on failure in the first year examination, the concerned student should be detained in the first year, and not to be promoted to the second year.

It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner failed in some subjects both in the main examination and in the compartmental examination of the first year B.Tech course. He seeks a mandamus from this Court directing the respondent-University to promote him to the second year B.Tech course, despite his having failed in the first year examination, on the sole ground that there are no Regulations in this regard. While Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel, would contend that there are Regulations in force, even if we were to proceed on the premise that Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, is justified in his submission that the Regulations framed by the University are inapplicable to B.Tech students, that would not confer any right on a student to claim that, even without passing the first year B.Tech examination, he/she should be permitted to attend classes of the second year and so on. Not only would that result in half baked engineers coming out of the colleges affiliated to the University, without having acquired the requisite knowledge to be conferred the Bachelor's Degree in Engineering, any such direction would also be contrary to larger public interest of ensuring excellence in education.

The learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to refrain from interfering with the decision of the University in this regard. In an intra-court appeal, this Court would not interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge, save in cases where the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality. We find no such infirmity in the order under appeal.

The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.