ORDER
Petitioners, who are students of M.Sc. (Ag.) Agronomy and M.Sc. (Ag.) Horticulture of G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology Pant Nagar, Nainital, hereinafter referred to as the University, challenge the order dated 17-8-95, whereby they have been dropped from the University on account of poor academic performance.
2. In brief, the facts as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioners were admitted after the admission test in M.Sc. (Ag.) Agronomy and M.Sc. (Ag.) Horticulture. For the M.Sc. (Ag.) degree course there are minimum four and maximum eight semesters. In the aforesaid course, each semester consists of 120 days classes and practicals, but in the year 1994 there were only 20 days classes and practicals in each semester, therefore, the petitioners could not take advantage of 20 days classes and consequently, they could not make full preparation for the examination. It has also been stated that the petitioner’s test was taken in Hindi, but they were taught in English language, while up to the B.Sc. (Ag.) they were taught in Hindi, due to which petitioner No. 1 secured the average of both semesters 3.227 G.P.A. (Grade Point Average) while petitioner No. 2 got the average of both semesters 3.066 G.P.A. The minimum requirement was 4.005 out of 5.000 G.P.A. It has also been stated that the prospects was given to the petitioners only in the month of February, 1994 and not at the time of admission. Regulation 26 of the Chapter V provided as under:–
“Dropping for Poor Academic Performance;
26.1.(1) If at the end of any semester during which a post-graduate student has been on Academic Probation the over all Grade Point Average of that student in 300 and higher series courses falls below 4.000 out of 5.000 he shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance with a right to petition for readmission.
(2) Any post-graduate student failing twice in the same course/examination shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance. In exceptional circumstances the Vice-Chancellor may permit a third chance on the recommendations of the Advisor/Head of the Deptt/Dean of the College concerned/Dean, P.G.S.
(3) No post-graduate student shall register again in a course which he/she has already passed the subsequent grade shall be ignored.
3. A perusal of the aforesaid Regulation reveals that if any student secured less than
4.000 G.P.A. prescribed for the poor academic performance with a right to petition for re-admission and any post-graduate student failing twice in the same course shall be dropped. In exceptional circumstances the Vice-Chancellor may permit a third chance on the advice of Head of Deptt/Dean of the College Dean P.G.S.
4. The petitioners thus contend that they were entitled for their admission in third semester. The petitioners were not afforded opportunity to improve their academic performance before dropping from University vide order dated 17-8-95 arbitrarily and the same amounted to punishment. Respondents had no right to drop the petitioners as they have already charged the full fee for the whole semesters. It has been stated that petitioners have made a representation in this regard, but of no avail. In the similar circumstances, one Gyan Chand filed a writ petition in this Court in which it was directed to respondents to permit him to appear in the third semester, therefore, petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the above mentioned reliefs.
5. On behalf of the respondents a counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri A.C. Kulshrestha, senior account clerk of the University, therein the facts stated in the writ petition have been controverted and it has been asserted that the impugned order dated 17-8-95 was rightly passed in as much as the petitioners were liable to be dropped for poor academic performance, They could not secure the minimum G.P.A. as required under the Regulation. It has been asserted that the petitioners are not entitled to be admitted in third semester. In the counter-affidavit the date of admission of the petitioners has been mentioned as 12-8-94 while in Annexure C.A. 1 the dates of submission of forms of the petitioners have been mentioned as 12-2-1994 and 2-3-94 respectively. It has also been admitted that the Regulations in question were amended by the academic council on 7-10-94 Respondents have also admitted that on account of the Uttrakhand agitation, academic session was curtailed and classes and practicals as contemplated under the Regulations were not held.
6. Since the requisite affidavits have been exchanged by the parties and have been placed on the record of the case I have heard the matter on the request of the learned counsel for the parties under Chapter XXII, Rule 2 of the Rules of the Court and finally disposed of.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that at the time of admission Regulation 26 as has been reproduced above was in force and not the amended Regulation. Therefore, the unamended Regulation 26 will apply to the present case and not the amended Regulation referred to in the counter-affidavit and reproduced in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. It has further been contended that the petitioners had actually no knowledge or notice of the amendment made in the Regulation, nor they ever gave any undertaking to abide by the said Regulation. Re-liance is being placed on Regulation 26 as amended on 7-10-94 by the Academic Counsel of the University which is quoted below, in support of the case set up by respondents in the counter-affidavit:–
Dropping for Poor Academic Performance:
V(26)(1). If at the end of any semester during which a post-graduate student has been on academic probation the overall Grade Point Average of the student falls below 4.00 out of 5.000 he shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance with a right to petition for admission. However, a student falling in the following categories will be finally dropped form the. University with no right to petition for re-admission.
(a) A student having a deficiency of more than 10 credits i.e. the difference between the credits passed with C grade and with A grade.
(2) Any post-graduate student failing twice in the same course/examination shall be dropped from the University for poor academic performance. In exceptional circumstances the Vice-Chancellor may permit a third chance to pass the course to the student on the recommendation of concerned Advisor/Head of Deptt and Ean P.G.S. any student failing in the same course/examination thrice shall be finally dropped from the University with no right to petition.
(3) No post-graduate student shall register again in a course which he/she has already cleared with a passing is grade. If he/she registers again a course already passed the subsequent grade shall be ignored.
(4) A post-graduate student unable to . complete his courses as well as thesis within maximum permissible degree duration with a OGPA of 4.000 will be finally dropped from the University with no right to petition, (5) A post-graduate student whose petition was rejected by the Vice-chancellor will have no further right to petition for re-admission. 8. It has also been stated that at the time of their admission petitioners have given a declaration to abide by all eligibility, requirements'and conditions laid down in the prospectus. The said declaration is quoted below:-- "DECLARATION"
I, the undersigned hereby declare that the statements made above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I fully understand that any wrong statement made in this application may result in cancellation of my candidature or termination of my admission at any stage at my costs, risk and responsibility. I have carefully gone through all the details in the prospectus and I agree to abide by all eligibility, requirements and conditions laid down therein. I further declare that I have not been involved as an accused in a case involving a cognisable offence or have not been convicted of such an offence or of an offence involving moral turpitude. I also declare that I am fully aware of the fact that in the event of the above statement being found wrong at any time my admission in the G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology Patnagar shall be liable to be cancelled.
Jagpal Singh
Signature of the Candidate.
9. It has further been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order which amounts to punishment to the petitioners for the alleged poor academic performance, has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to improve the performance and to explain their case. The said order has thus been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for petitioners has also contended that full fee for third semester has already been charged by the University from the petitioners, the respondents are thus estopped from denying the right of admission of the petitioners in third semester and that it was obligatory upon the admission committee of the University to pass appropriate order, permitting them to appear in third semester and that under the facts and circumstances when the respondents themselves have admitted that on account of Uttrakhand agitation the academic session was curtailed as well as the classes of practicals of each semester were not held in accordance with Regulation, the petitioners were entitled to lenient view in the matter of their admission. The impugned order dropping the petitioners from the University is not only harsh, but violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion the Regulations which were in force at the time of admission of petitioners shall be applicable in the present case inasmuch as the petitioners have given an undertaking to abide by the unamended regulations, they could not abide by the Regulations, which were non-existent and were framed much later they were admitted in M.Sc. (Ag.) classes.
11. As stated above in the admission forms petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have given declarations on 21-2-94 and 2-3-94 respectively to the effect that they have carefully gone through all the details in the prospectus and agree to abide by all eligibility, requirements, and conditions laid down therein. The said declaration in my opinion applies to the prospectus and conditions regarding eligibility and requirement conditions laid down therein which existed at the time of filing of admission forms or on the date of admission. Admittedly, in the present case, Regulation 26 was amended much after filing of the admission forms and the date of the admission of petitioners, i.e. 17-8-94. Thus the amended Regulation 26 will have no application to the present case. Learned counsel for petitioners is right in his submission that the petitioners were entitled to make petition for admission in third, semester even if they could not achieve the requisite G.P.A. in 1st and 2 semesters.
12. Admittedly, no opportunity to improve the academic performance or to show cause was afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned order dated 17-8-95. For a regular student of educational institution there could be no severe punishment than ousting him from Institution and debarring from appearing in subsequent examination. The impugned order of dropping the petitioners from University amounts to an order of punishment. In my opinion, therefore, it was obligatory upon the respondents to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to improve their academic performance and to show cause before passing the said order the impugned order is thus violative of the principle of natural justice and deserves to be quashed on this ground also.
13. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the amended Regulations are applicable in the present case and that the petitioners were not entitled to be admitted in third semester, is not acceptable to me. Learned counsel for respondents has also placed reliance upon the decision in Rejesh Kumar v. Chancellor, G.P. Pant University, 1992(1) UPLBEC 657 : (1992 All LJ 525) and in Malkyat Singh v. Cane Commissioner U. P., 1992 (2) UPLBEC 937: (1993 All LJ 304).
14. In Rajesh Kumar case (1992 All LJ 525) (supra) the question involved was as to whether this Court could go into the merit of the decision taken by academic body or the Rules framed for that purpose, it was held that it would not prudent for this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 Of the Constitution to go into the merit of the decision taken by academic body of an educational institution or the Rules framed for this purpose and provision of Regn. 41(1) of U.P. Krishi and Pradhogik Vishvavidhyalaya Adhiniyam held to be valid.
15. In the case of Malkyat Singh (1993 All LJ 304) (supra) the question involved was as to whether as to from what date term of the Committee of Management shall commence, it was held that the term of committee commenced from taking over the charge by it. Aforesaid decisions are not applicable in the present case.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
17. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 17-8-1995 is quashed. The petitioners vide order dated 13-9-1995 were permitted by this Court to attend the classes. According to their own case, they have already submitted representation before the petition committee of the University. The said committee is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s representation in the light of the observations and directions made above within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before respondent No. 2, Registrar of the University.
18. Petition allowed.