R.L. Anand, J.
1. Des Raj son of Shri Rani Lok has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a wril in the nature of certiorari and he has prayed that the order dated 9/15.02.2000, Annexure P-l, passed by respondent No. 2 vide which the request of the petitioner for re-admission and completion of 7th and 8th semesters of Electronics (Instrumentation & Control) Engineering which is of the duration of 8 semesters, has been declined and the petitioner has further made a prayer that writ of mandamus be issued against respondents No. 1 and 2 to readmit him in the 7th semester of the respondent-institute.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that on pursuing the Entrance Test conducted by the Punjabi University, Patiala, the petitioner was allowed admission in the course of Electronics (Instrumentation and Control) Engineering which is duration of eight semesters (two semesters in a year i.e. six months each) and the petitioner sought admission in the year 1995. The petitioner had been pursuing his studies and he was promoted to the 7th semester vide registration dated 6.1.1999. When the petitioner had studied for three
months in the 7th semester he fell ill and suffered Nervous Disorder – MDP Biodolar and Nervousness. He remained under treatment of different doctors and specialists of the disease of which the petitioner was suffering. He could not continue his studies. On being relieved from his illness the petitioner made a representation dated 18.1.2000 (P-15) to respondent No. 2 for re-admission and completion of his course of which the two semesters were left. His representation was rejected vide order dated 9/15.2.2000 (Annexure P-1) and according to the petitioner this order of rejection is illegal, arbitrary and without applying the judicious mind. According to the petitioner he can pass the said course within the period of 7 years which would complete in the year 2002 and he can seek re-admission by making payment of re-admission fee of Rs. 500/- as per rule 20 of the academic regulations of the institute.
3. The notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. The stand taken up by the respondents is that the petitioner Shri Des Raj was admitted to the B.E. Programme in the discipline of Electronics (Instrumentation and Control) against one of the seais reserved for SC/ST during the sessions 1995-96 on the basis of his merit in the Common Entrance Test of 1995. As per Academic Regulations of the institute, a student was required to complete the degree in a maximum of 6 years. As per clause 15 Schedule C-l of the Academic Regulations, every student is required to maintain a CGPA of 4.5. from the time of his entry to institute including the last semester. This Rule is as follows:-
“A candidate is required to maintain a Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 4.5. CGPA is the weighted average of all the grades awarded to a student since his entry into the institute upto and including the last semester and computed as follows.”
Respondent stated that since the time, the petitioner had joined the Institute, his academic performance has not been up to the mark. His academic performance is as follows:-
Number of “E” (Fail)
II (Project Semester)
4. The further stand of the respondent was ihat a candidate who earns “E” Grade in a course shall have to register for the course again and would have to pass the same by getting a grade from “A” to “D”. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he has as yet a total number of 23 courses to clear. The total number of Semesters
which were available to him even on 18.1.2000 when he applied for re-admission were only 3. It is, therefore, extremely difficult for the petitioner to clear all (he 23 courses even if 3 semesters are given to him. Since the time the petitioner joined the degree programme, his academic conduct has been extremely poor. He was earlier placed on Scholastic probation because of his academic deficiencies. Apart from this, the petitioner has not been attending the classes in the earlier semesters also as a result of which he is prohibited from taking his last semester examination due to shortage of attendance. The Notification dated 24.5.1997 shows Ihat petitioner was not permitted to attend the end semester Examination in May/June, 1997 as he did not fulfill minimum requirement of 75% lectures. By another Notification dated 5.12.1997 the petitioner was not permitted to sit for the end semester examination in December 1997 as he did not have 75% attendance. The petitioner left the institute after registration sometime during the period of the 1st semester of the Session 1998-99. He did not send any intimation at all. Registered letter was sent to him on 10.2.1999 asking him to intimate the institute as to whether or not he was interested in continuing his studies. However, no response was received from his side. He also did not register for the 1st Semester of the Session 1999-2000 and neither he did send any intimation. Itwasonlyon 18.1.2000 when the 2nd semester of the Session has already started on 3.1.2000, the petitioner came up with therequest that he be re-admitted to the institute as he could not come earlier to the institute due to some mental illness.
5. It was the further stand of the respondents that the case of the petitioner for re-admission was considered in the light of Clause 20(ii) of Schedule C-l of Part-C and the case of the petitioner was rejected. According to Clause 20(ii) quoted above, if a student leaves the institute with permission due to valid reasons he can be permitted to join back with the permission of the Dean of Academic Affairs. In case the student leaves the institute without permission he can be permitted to join back with the permission of the Dean of the Academic Affairs by charging re-admission fee of Rs. 500/- provided that the Regulations regarding admissibility of maximum duration of six years will be implemented in such cases strictly and the gap of one or two semesters missed by the student will count towards the total duration of the course permissible underthe Regulations. If the period of absence without information exceeds two semesters, the student’s name will be struck off from the institute rolls. It was further pleaded by the respondents that the Board of Governors in its 55th meeting held on October, 12,1999 on the recommendation of the Senate amended the above regulation and as per the amended regulation the request of the petitioner was rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner’s academic performance was poor even during the time he remained in the institute and secondly the petitioner will not be able to complete all (he requirements for awarding B.E. Degree in the stipulated period of 6 years. This is the maximum period permis-
sible under the Academic regulations. With this stand, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. I have heard Shri G.S. Savra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri P.S. Pat-walia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
7. The challenge in this case has been given by the petitioner to Annexure P-l, a letter dated 9/15.2.2000 issued by respondents No. 1 and 2, according to which, the request of the petitioner for re-admission to the institute was considered as per rules of the institute and was rejected.
8. It is the common case of the parties that the petitioner took the admission in the institute in the Session 1995-96. This course is of 8 semesters. As per clause 20(ii) a discretion has been left to the institute that when a student leaves the institute without permission such student can be permitted to join back the institute with the permission of the Dean by charging re-admission fee of Rs. 500/- but before this discretion can be exercised, it is obligatory on the part of a candidate that he must clear the course within a period of six years strictly and the gap of one or two semesters missed by the student will count towards the total duration of the course permissible under the regulation. This strict rider is further “if the period of absence without information exceeds two semesters, the student’s name will be struck off from the institute rolls”.
9. In this case the petitioner became absent in the month of January 1998. In this manner it can be said that the petitioner missed two semesters of the year
1998. He also missed two more semesters of the year
1999. He became fit and was relieved of the disease in
January, 2000. His request was received by the insti
tute in the month of January, 2000. By that time the
petitioner had missed four semesters and as per rules of
the respondents, if a student becomes absent without
information and his absence exceeds two semesters, in
that eventuality, there is no option to the institute but to
strike off the name of such candidate. At the cost of
repetition, it is stated that the absence of the petitioner
was for 4 semesters.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner was primarily rejected on the ground that petitioner’s academic performance was poor during the period when heremained in the institute and secondly, the petitioner was not in a position to complete all the requirements of the award of B.E. degree in the stipulated period of six years and, therefore, the respondent should be directed to re-admit the petitioner to the 7th and 8th semesters. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was allowed to study up to 6th semester and it will be a great hardship to him if he is not allowed to get the admission in the 7th or 8th semester. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner will do a lot of labour so as to complete all the gradations as
desired by the institute.
11. I do not subscribe to the arguments raised by the teamed counsel for the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner was duly considered and it was found that even in the previous sessions starting from 1995-96 to 1997-98, the petitioner was found lacking in his studies. He was also found lacking in this lectures. The petitioner was supposed to clear 23 courses and according to the opinion of the institute it was extremely difficult for the petitioner to clear all the 23 courses even if three semesters are given to him. The petitioner has already lost two semesters of the year 1998. According to the rules of the institute his name was bound to be struck off. While considering such like cases, the institute is supposed to see the entire performance of a candidate. The re-admission cannot be claimed as a matter of course or right and the re-admission in the present case has been sought after the expiry of the two semesters. If all these aspects have been validly examined by the institute, the High Court will not sit over and above the judgment of the institute unless the opinion formulated by the institute is held to be perverse or arbitrary.
12. It was then submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that it was beyond the control of the petitioner when he suffered the men-tat disease for two years. The moment he was declared fit by the doctors to undertake his studies he did not lose any time and informed the institute. Since a power of re-admission has been given to the respondent- institute, therefore they should exercise the discretion and power in favour of the petitioner by allowing him to undertake his 7th and 8th semesters. This submission of the learned counsel forthepetitionerhas again been considered by the Court. I do not find any merit in this contention. Rules of institute cannot be altered to the advantage or disadvantage of a candidate. These rules have to be interpreted as it is unless those rules are violative of the Constitution. When the rules do not help the petitioner it will be erroneous approach on the part of the High Court to impose its own powers upon the institute. Such like approach has been discussed by the Hcn’ble Supreme Court in several cases.
13. The substance of my above discussion is that the previous record of the petitioner was very poor when he had been undertaking the 6th semester. He did not inform the authorities for two years and in these circumstances, there was no other option for the institute but to cancel the candidature of the petitioner.
14. Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition
and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to
15. petition dismissed.