in ,

wrong communication of college cannot restraint student from admission into 3rd semester of BBA: Chattisgarh HC


In the case, semester is not an opinion of the expert body on
academic matters which has been called in question. The issue revolves
around the interpretation of a provision of the Ordinance, and therefore, we
are of the opinion that aforesaid decision has no application in the attending
facts and circumstances of this case.

This appeal is presented against the order dated 13.04.2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 146 of 2021, whereby,
while not acceding to the prayers made the writ petitioner, the learned
Single Judge directed compensation of an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid
to him by Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University (for short, University) The petitioner was enrolled as a student of Bachelor of Business semester
Administration (for short, BBA) in Vivekanand College-respondent No. 4 under
the University-respondent No. 2. He appeared as a regular student for BBA
I-Semester in the academic session 2018-2019, the result of which was
declared on 02.04.2019. The petitioner had subjects of English, Computer
Application, Business Mathematics, Principles of Management and Financial
Accounting for the aforesaid I-Semester examination. Out of the said five
subjects, the Petitioner obtained pass marks in English and Principles of
Management but failed in the other three subjects and accordingly, the result
was declared as ‘fail’

The request made by the petitioner, the original mark-sheet
of the II-Semester examination was not furnished to the petitioner and after a
prolonged correspondence, subsequently on 17.12.2020, it was
communicated by the University that on re-evaluation, his marks have
remained unchanged and as he had failed to clear the I-Semester as
ex-regular student, under the BBA Ordinance-91, he was not eligible to appear
in the II-Semester examination. It is averred that after the aforesaid letter
dated 17.12.2020 was passed, the mark-sheet of the II-Semester of the
petitioner was taken off from the official website of the University.

Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
No. 2 and 3, while supporting the order of the learned Single Judge, submits
that a bare reading of Clause 11 of BBA Ordinance-91 would make it
abundantly clear that the case of the petitioner falls squarely within the ambit
and amplitude of Clause 11 and therefore, no interference with the order of the
learned Single Judge is called for. He further submits that in academic
matters, writ court should be slow in interfering with the decisions of the
authorities and to bolster his submission, he has relied upon the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of University Grants Commission &
Another v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar), reported in (2013) 10 SCC 519.

Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No. 4 has also endorsed the submissions of Mr. Choubey and in addition, has
placed before this Court Ordinance No. 6 to place reliance on the definitions
as appearing in Section (1)(ii) therein. Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem that the case of the Petitioner, bearing in mind the factual matrix, hinges on the Clauses 8 to 11 of
Ordinance-91 and more importantly, on Clause 11.We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the materials on record.

Clause 8 of the BBA Ordinance-91 provides that a student would be
eligible to keep the term (ATKT) and will be promoted to the next semester in
the event of passing in the internal assessment of all the papers and
appearing in all the theory papers, but fails in two of the theory papers while
securing at least 45% marks in aggregate. It is not in dispute when the
petitioner appeared in the examination held in December-January 2018-19,
he had failed in three subjects, and therefore, he could not keep his term and
was not promoted to the next semester. After one year, in the examination
held in 2019-20, the petitioner again appeared and in that examination also, as
noted earlier, he failed to pass in all the subjects, but was shown to have been
given result ‘ATKT 1st chance’. In the mark-sheet, the status of the petitioner
was shown as ‘ex-regular’. Clause 9 of BBA Ordinance-91 provides that a candidate having
ATKT will be permitted to appear in the ATKT examination of odd or even
semester, as the case may be. Clause 10 of the BBA Ordinance-91 provides
that a student who has obtained ATKT in any semester examination shall be
allowed two chances to clear the ATKT papers of that semester, when the
examination of that semester would be held. Clause 11 of the BBA Ordinance-91 provides for a situation when after availing the chances as indicated in Clause 10, a student fails to clear the examination, he will be allowed to appear in all the papers of that semester once again as an ex-student and it is only in the event of failing in that examination also, such an ex-student will cease to be a student of the BBA course.

In view of what has been stated above, we set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge while maintaining the direction to pay
compensation. The writ petition is allowed. We direct the respondentUniversity to furnish the II-Semester mark-sheet of the petitioner within a
period of two weeks from today and to admit the petitioner in the III-semester
as also to appear in the examination in light of Clauses 9 and 10 of the BBA

Also Read  Writ Of Habeas Corpus Will Not Lie When Adoptive Mother Seeks Child's Custody From Natural Mother: Madhya Pradesh High Court