JUDGMENT
Prem Chand Jain, C.J.
1. Bangalore University, Jnana Bharathi, through its Registrar, has filed this appeal against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated November 28, 1984, by which W.P.No. 13507 of 1984 filed by Ku. P.B. Rita (hereinafter referred to as the Writ Petitioner) has been allowed and the words ‘provided they have submitted the applications for the examinations along with the required fees in Regulation X(2)for the B.A., B.Com., and B.Sc., Degree Courses of the Bangalore University are declared invalid as offending Article 14 of the Constitution. A further Writ of Mandamus was issued to the Bangalore University to permit the Writ Petitioner to keep term for the III year Degree Course during the current academic year.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy certain salient features of the case may be noticed : The Writ Petitioner joined St. Joseph’s College, Bangalore for B.A. Degree Course during the academic year 1982-83. She completed the I Year Degree course in that year and during the academic year 1983-84, she had put in the requisite attendance for the II Year Degree Course. As averred in the petition, the Writ Petitioner suffered typhoid fever at the relevant point of time and therefore she did not submit her application to the II Year Degree examination. Having put in the prescribed attendance during the II Year Degree Course, the Writ Petitioner intended to attend the III Year Degree Course during the academic year 1984-85, and in the meanwhile passed II Year Degree at the supplementary examination having regard to the fact that carry forward system is in existence according to the Regulations of the University. When she sought permission to continue the III Year B.A., Degree Course during the current academic year an endorsement dated August 14, 1984 was issued by the Registrar in the following terms:
“With reference to the above, Miss P.B. Rita, is hereby informed that as per Regulation No. X(2) of B.A.,/B.Sc./B.Com., Degree Courses of the Bangalore University, the candidates who have completed attendance in the II year Degree shall be eligible to keep term in the III year provided they have submitted the applications for the examinations along with the required fees. As per her above application, she has not paid the examination fees for II Year Degree Course and submitted the application for the said examination. Hence she is not eligible to keep term in the II Year B.A., Degree Course during the academic year 1984-85.”
According to the endorsement, the Writ Petitioner was ineligible to keep term for the III Year as she had not submitted the application for the examination during the II Year Degree Course. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid endorsement, W.P.No. 13507 of 1984 was filed by the Writ Petitioner.
3. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the relevant regulations, has come to the conclusion that the latter part of Regulation X(2) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and as earlier stated, the same has been declared invalid.
4. Before adverting to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be useful to notice the relevant regulations, to which reference was made during the course of arguments:
“V. (a)&(b) ** **
(c) A student shall be considered to have completed an academic year if he/she has attended not less than 3/4 of the number of working periods comprising the course during the said academic year and if his/her conduct and progress have been satisfactory.
VII. APPEARANCE FOR THE EXAMINATION:
1. A candidate shall apply for all the parts in each examination when he/she appears for the first time. A candidate shall be considered to have appeared for the examination only if he/she submitted the prescribed application for the examination along with the required fees.
** ** X. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH CANDIDATES ARE PERMITTED TO KEEP TERM IN THE SECOND AND THIRD YEAR DEGREE COURSES: (1) The candidates who have completed attendance in I Year Degree shall be eligible to keep term in the II Year Degree provided they have submitted the applications for the examinations along with the required fees. (2) The candidates who have completed attendance in the II Year Degree shall be eligible to keep term in the III Year provided they have submitted the applications for the examinations along with the required fees. (3) The candidates who have completed attendance in the III Year Degree shall be eligible to appear for the III year Examinations. (Clause 3 as amended vide Notification No. Aca-II/G2/Regi. NS/80-81 dated 22-7-1980) (4) The candidates shall not be eligible for the award of the degree by the University unless they have passed all the prescribed papers/subjects of the course as a whole. XI. CLASSIFICATION OF SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES: (1)to(3) (4) Classes and ranks shall be declared on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates in the Optional subjects under Part II of the I Year, II Year and III Year of the degree courses as a whole. However, only those candidates who have passed each annual public examination in the first attempt only shall be eligible for the award of ranks. The first ten ranks only shall be notified. XVI. REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THESE REGULATIONS: If any difficulty arises while giving effect to the provisions of these Regulations, the Vice-Chancellor may, in extraordinary circumstances, pass such orders as he may deem fit, in consultation with the Committee of the Academic Council, if need be."
5. It was vehemently contended by Sri Shivaraj Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant, that under Regulation V(c) a candidate must attend not less than 3/4 of the number of working periods and that his/her conduct and progress should be satisfactory before claiming to have completed an academic year, that a candidate can keep term only if he/she submits the prescribed application for the examination along with the required fees, that making of such a regulation is not only reasonable but has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved, i.e., that every student in the ordinary course is expected to sit and take the final examination unless he/she is prevented from some unforeseen circumstance and that the view of the learned single Judge that the words “provided they have submitted the applications for the examinations along with the required fees” occurring in Regulation X(2) offend Article 14 of the Constitution is legally not tenable.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel Sri C.N. Kamath, appearing for the respondent, reiterated his stand putforth before the learned single Judge and contended that the view taken by the learned single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity.
7. As can be seen the learned single Judge, on consideration of the Regulations, has found that there is no rational basis to distinguish between two students, who have put in the prescribed attendance, but who had not appeared for the II year examination, in the matter of giving an opportunity to keep term for the next higher class and to appear for the examination of the II year in the meanwhile, by providing that one of them who had submitted the application for examination alone would be entitled to such benefit and not the one who had not submitted such application for, the position in the case of both of them is the same in that they have put in attendance and both of them have not appeared for the examination. The circumstance that one had submitted the application is a very slender basis to distinguish the two and give the privilege of keeping term in the next higher class in respect of one and denying the same to another. As is observed by the learned single Judge, on the basis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in THE RAILWAY BOARD AND ANOTHER v. A. PITCHUMANI, it is well settled that in order to test the constitutional validity of a provision on the ground of violation of Article 14 there are two cumulative tests to be applied, viz., (i) whether the classification is reasonable, and (ii) even if the classification is reasonable, whether there is nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid two tests, it is now to be seen whether classification made in the Regulation is unreasonable and has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find ourselves unable to agree with the view of the learned single Judge. A conspectus of the aforesaid regulations clearly brings out the object of the University, i.e., to improve the academic standard and excellence. Regulation V(c) provides that on attending not less than 3/4 of the number of working periods comprising the course, a student shall be considered to have completed an academic year, of course, subject to the condition that his/her conduct and progress have been satisfactory. This regulation ensures regular attendance and maintaining of good conduct. Regulation VII(1) regulates the appearance of a candidate for the examination. According to the first part of the Regulation, a candidate is required to appear for all the subjects when he/she appears for the examination for the first time, Under the second part, if a candidate submits the prescribed application for the examination along with the required fees, he/she shall be considered to have appeared for the examination. The object of this Regulation is to require a candidate to appear in all the subjects for the first term and a candidate can appear in the examination only when he submits the prescribed application for the examination along with the required fees. However, a concession is given that in case a candidate submits the prescribed application with the required fees, he shall be considered to have appeared in the examination.
10. Regulation X prescribes conditions under which candidates are permitted to keep term in the II and III Year Degree Courses. Clause (2) of Regulation X prescribed two conditions for eligibility for keeping term for the III year, i.e., (1) a candidate must have completed attendance in the II Year Degree Course; and (2) he/she must have submitted the application for examination along with the required fees. The Regulations have been framed by the University in exercise of the power vested in it. Under Regulation X(2) a candidate cannot keep term if he does not fulfil the two conditions for the eligibility stated therein. The contention on behalf of the respondent is that there is no reasonable nexus of the offending provision with the object sought to be achieved, i.e., to ensure academic standard and excellence. But a little deep scrutiny of the Regulations would show the untenability of the argument. It is a matter of common knowledge that it is only in the past some years that the concept of supplementary examinations has been introduced; otherwise, only the final examinations used to take place. The idea of holding supplementary examination would appear justifiable only when (a) the original examination is cancelled for some good cause, or (b) it is held for the benefit of candidates who were unable to appear at the original examination for reasons beyond their control. But it has never been thought proper to hold supplementary examination for students (a) who absent themselves from original examinations or (b) merely to give a second chance to those who failed to pass the original examination. Although now supplementary examinations have come to be a normal feature of the examination system in the Country, yet it cannot and should not be extended to those who intentionally absent themselves from the original examinations. The University apparently has made these Regulations after taking into consideration all the relevant factors of which it can alone be in know of. The Courts generally are not expected to sit in Judgment over the policy evolved by the subordinate regulation making body. In MAHARASHTRA S.B.O.S. & H.S. EDUCATION v. PARITOSH, the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines in this regard, and the relevant observations read as under:-
” 16. In our opinion, the aforesaid approach made by the High Court is wholly incorrect and fallacious. The Court cannot sit in Judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature, and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw backs in the policy incorporated in a Rule or Regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the Regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution…..
21. The legal position is now well established that even a Byelaw cannot be struck down by the Court on the ground of unreasonableness merely because the Court thinks that it goes further than “is necessary” or that it does not incorporate certain provisions which in the opinion of the Court would have been fair and wholesome. The Court cannot say that a Bye-law is unreasonable merely because the Judges do not approve of it. Unless it can be said that a Bye-law is manifestly unjust, capricious, inequitable or partial in its operation, it cannot be invalidated by the Court on the ground of unreasonableness. The responsible representative body entrusted with the power to make Bye-laws must ordinarily be presumed to know what is necessary, reasonable, just and fair………”
Keeping in view the aforesaid observations and the scrutiny of Regulation X(2), we find that the Regulation is not so unreasonable as to be not serving any purpose. For keeping term, the first condition is to attend the required number of periods and the second condition is to submit the application for examination along with the required fees. As we look at the whole Regulation, we find that the object of making such a provision is to ensure the taking of the examination by the candidate. A candidate who completes his attendance and files the application for examination along with the required fees, would, in the ordinary course, take the final examination. It is a matter of common knowledge that the applications for examination are made even when the lectures are going on and the required attendance may not be complete. If the interpretation which is sought to be put by the respondent is accepted, then, a candidate from the very beginning would only think of completing his attendance and is not likely to devote his attention to the studeis. The eligibility condition of prescribed attendance may be fulfilled by a particular student by resorting to proxy attendance. There is no gainsaying that the students are expected to know their duties and also study hard and sincerely in order to acquire know ledge and become successful in the examination. They should not forget that obtaining anyhow a certificate for passing the examination will not enable them to be successful in their career. They are required to follow the norm that it is their foremost duty to devote their entire energy for the pursuit of study. But how can all this happen if the aim is only to complete the attendance and get promotion to the next higher class? It was emphatically contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that there is hardly any appreciable difference between a case where an application is made for getting the benefit and a case where no such application is made. But them we must understand the human nature. A student who completes the required percentage of periods and also pays the examination fees would not, without any sufficient reason, abstain from the examination. When a student pays fees for taking the examination he or she in the ordinary course would always be conscious of this fact that they have paid the examination fees out of the hard earned money of their parents and that they should not betray the confidence of their parents and also not act in utter disregard of the norm which is expected of a good student to be followed. The University expects that every student should appear in the final examination after completion of the academic year. That is why the University has framed Regulation XI, Clause (4) of which provides that only those candidates who have passed each annual public examination in the first attempt only shall be eligible for the award of ranks. How can a student think of a rank if it is left to his sweet will to sit or not to sit in the final examination and get away with a feeling that without filing application and paying prescribed fees he would automatically to promoted to higher class? It may be pertinent to observe here that the examination fees is paid also to facilitate the University to meet the expenses of holding the examinations. To us it is quite evident that the aforesaid condition of eligibility has been put in order to help only those cases where a candidate has made the application for examination and paid the fees, yet, for some unforeseen reason, has not been able to take the examination. If such a condition had not been there, the students who are not able to appear in the examination for some unforeseen reason, were likely to lose their year. We are of the view that compulsion involved in the requirement to pay the examination fee and apply for the examination, is part of the academic discipline contemplated by the University to ensure that the students would pursue their studies diligently during the particular year and keep up the necessary progress.
Just as the requirement of 75% of attendance is theoretically accepted as essential to ensure that students pursue their studies properly (even though in a given case, a student with lesser percentage of attendance, may be in a position to outbeat in academic excellence other students who attended all the classes), this requirement to pay the examination fee and to file the application for the examinations, has to be accepted as a valid requirement to achieve the purposes of an educational course.
In this view of the matter, we find that the second condition in Regulation X(2) is quite valid and does not suffer from the vice of unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
11. No other point arises for consideration.
12. For the reasons recorded above, we allow this appeal and set aside the Judgment of the learned single Judge.
13. During the course of arguments it was brought to our notice that the respondent has taken all her examinations. If this is factually correct, then we find that it would cause great hardship if in view of our aforesaid interpretation the career of the respondent is jeopardised. Consequently, in the circumstances of the case, we hold that the result of the respondent shall not be affected by the aforesaid interpretation of ours.
14. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.