JUDGMENT
Cyriac Joseph, J.
1. The petitioner qualified for admission to the 4 years course of B.Sc. Engineering conducted by Respondent No.1 and was admitted to the 1st year of B.Sc. Engineering (Civil) in the academic sessions of 1989-90. For various reasons the petitioner could not attend classes regularly and pass in all the examinations. Consequently by the end of the academic session 1995-96 he had cleared only 7 papers out of 9 papers of part. III (3rd year). According to the petitioner though he had to clear two more papers of part III (3rd year) he was entitled to be promoted to the final year during the academic session 1996-97. The petitioner attended the classes of final year (part IV) during the academic session 1996-97 and also appeared in the sessional test and passed the same. However, when the petitioner went to fill up the examination form to appear in the examination of two papers of part III and all the papers of part IV in the annual examinations of 1997 he was not allowed to fill up the form on the ground that he had not completed the B.Sc. Engineering course and pass the examination within the stipulated period of 7 years. According to the University the time limit of 7 years expired in the case of the petitioner at the end of the academic session 1995-96 and he should have cleared the B.Sc.Engineering course in the annual examinations of 1996. Though the petitioner sent a representation dated 2.4.1997 to the Vice Chancellor Office, it was not considered for more than three months. Ultimately it was forwarded to the office of the Controller of Examinations on 15.7.1997, therefore, the petitioner was told that the petitioner would not, be allowed to take final examination of 1997. According to the petitioner he sent a further representation dated 22.7.1997 to the office of the Vice Chancellor seeking permission to appear in the annual examination of 1997 but he did not receive any reply. Feeling frustrated and dejected the petitioner left for his native town Itawa in Uttar Pradesh State. He came back to Delhi on 30.5.1998 and came to know that a number of students who had not completed the B.Sc. Engineering course within the stipulated period of 7 years were permitted to appear in the compartmental examination in 1997 in view of an order dated 19.12.1997 passed by the High Court of Delhi. The petitioner also came to know that the students who could not complete their course by appearing in the compartmental examination in December 1997 due to lack of notice were allowed to appear in the final examination of 1998 as per notice dated 26.12.1997 of the respondent University. It is stated that the petitioner had no information or knowledge about the said notice dated 26.12.1997 hence he could not appear in the annual examination of 1998. Thereupon the petitioner sent a representation dated 2.6.1998 to the Office of the Vice Chancellor seeking permission to appear in the compartmental examination of 1998 scheduled to be held in the month of August/September 1998. Since the petitioner did not receive any reply to the said representation he filed this writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-
i) Declare the Regulation 1(10) First Ordinance) of the University which prescribe 7 Years Time Limit for completion of the course of B.Sc. Engineering as null and void, illegal and inoperative; and or
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order/direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination of two papers of part III (3rd year) namely CE-301 Structural Analysis-II and CE-312 Numerical Analysis and Computer Programming (NAPC) and all the papers of Part-IV (Final Year) in the compartmental examination of 1998.
iii) And pass any other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. In support of the first prayer in the writ petition the only round
raised by the petitioner is that the impugned Ordinance prescribing maximum
time limit of 7 years for the completion of B.Sc. Engineering course suffers from the voice of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and discriminatory inasmuch as most of the Universities do not prescribe any time limit for the completion of the B.Sc. Engineering course and MBBS course. The submission of the petitioner that most of the Universities do not prescribe any time limit for the completion of B.Sc. Engineering course and MBBS course is disputed by the respondents in their reply to the show cause notice. Even otherwise the petitioner has only stated that “most of the Universities” do not prescribe any time limit. Even assuming that some of the other Universities do not prescribe any time limit for completion of B.Sc. Engineering course is not a ground for declaring the impugned Ordinance as arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. Each University is competent to make its own rules and regulations with regard to the courses conducted by the said Universities. There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in stipulating that a student admitted to a 4 years course should complete the course within a maximum period of 7 years. In my view; such a stipulation will only help to maintain the standard and quality of education and also to maintain discipline in the educational institutions. By such stipulation the students will be compelled to be regular in their studies as well as in appearing in the examinations. If the experts of the Universities found that such a stipulation was necessary this Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment and decision of the experts on such academic matters. Since the provision in the impugned Ordinance is applied to all the students of B.Sc. Engineering course in the respondent University, there is no discrimination involved in the application of the said provision. Hence there is no merit in the petitioner’s challenge against regulation 1(10) (First Ordinance) of the University and the first prayer in the writ petition is liable to be rejected.
3. Regarding the second prayer for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the compartmental examination of 1998 it should be pointed out that in the light of the judgment of this Court in Naseem Ahmed & Others Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia & others, Civil Writ Petition No.4318/97 and connected cases the petitioner is not entitled to the said relief. Admittedly as per the provisions of regulation 1(10) in the First Ordinance of the University the petitioner is not entitled to appear in the compartmental examination of 1998 since the maximum period of 7 years expired in his case at the end of 1998. In the judgment dated 19.12.1998 in Naseem Ahmed & Others (supra) it was held that in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court cannot prevent the respondent University from strictly adhering to the rules or from correcting a mistake occurred due to the unauthorised actions of some authorities of the University. It was also pointed out that in the prevailing circumstances of the respondent University the determination and zeal of the Vice Chancellor to strictly enforce the rules and regulations and to restore discipline, order and normalcy in the campus deserve appreciation and support. This Court expressed the view that the Court should refrain from any interference which would prejudice the efforts of the Vice Chancellor and the other authorities of the University “to bring and restore the glory of the institution”. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to appear in the compartmental examination of 1998 and this court cannot compel the respondent University to ignore or violate the provisions in the Ordinance.
4. However, this Court while dealing with CWP 4318/97 and connected cases requested the learned counsel for the University in case of the petitioners therein that in view of the certain circumstances mentioned in paragraph 9 of the judgment in those cases. After consulting the University learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in case of the examination already held results could be declared and in other cases the petitioner could be permitted to appear in the compartmental examination commencing on 24.12.1997 as a one time concession. In the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents this Court directed that in case where the petitioners had already appeared in the final examination in 1997 their results may be declared on or before 22nd December, 1997 and if any of them had failed in the said examination he may be permitted to appear in the compartmental examination commencing on 24.12.1997, and result of such examination also may be duly declared. In case where the petitioners were prevented from appearing in the final examination of 1997 they may be
allowed to appear in the compartmental examination commencing on 24.12.1997 and their results may be duly declared. It was further directed that the concession made by the respondents in the case will not constitute a precedent and that the petitioners would not be entitled to claim any further extension of time to complete the course and pass the examination on the basis of the indulgence shown by the University. Pursuant to the above mentioned judgment the University issued Annexure-E notice dated 26.12.1997 extending the concession not only to the petitioners before the Court but also to similarly situated other students also. The University went one step further and said in Annexure-E notice that in case owing to lack of notice some candidates were not able to participate in the compartmental examination in December 1997 they would be allowed clear their papers in the final examination to be held in 1998. However, the petitioner did not avail of the above concession extended by the University. Neither did he appear in the compartmental examination in December 1997, nor did he appear in the annual examination held in April 1998. Thus even as per the notice dated 26.12.1997 the petitioner is not entitled to appear in the compartmental examination in 1998.
5. According to the petitioner he was not aware of Annexure-E notice dated 26.12.1997 as he had left Delhi for his native place in U.P. State and he came back to Delhi only in May 1998 and consequently he could not appear in the examination in April 1998. Having failed to complete the course within the stipulated period the petitioner apparently gave up his studies and went back to his native place without questioning the action, of the respondents or the provision in the Ordinance. He also did not keep in touch with the University or his fellow students to know further developments. If the petitioner could not avail of the concession given by the University in the light of the judgment of this court the fault lies only with him and not with the University. The petitioner has no legal or moral right to demand that the University should extend further concession to him.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Annexure-E notice dated 26.12.1997 was not communicated to the petitioner and that it was not published in the newspapers. After all the University was only extending some concession to the students in view of the judgment of this Court and the matter was published in the University. In the circumstances of this case I am of the view that the University was not bound to communicate Annexure-E notice dated 26.12.1997 to individual student like the petitioner or to publish the same in the newspapers. If the petitioner was interested in completing the course he should have kept in touch with the University or his fellow students. The petitioner has belatedly come to this Court knowing that some of the students got the benefit of Annexure-E notice dated 26.12.1997.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that S/Shri Adil Iqbal and Mohd. Moin were allowed to appear in the B.Sc. Engineering course in the annual examination of 1997 though they have also not completed their B.Sc. Engineering course within the stipulated time of 7 years. It was explained by the learned counsel for the respondents that they were allowed to appear in the examination in view of the concession mentioned above.
