Judgment:
Anand Byrareddy, J.
1. Heard the Counsel for the appellants and respondents 2, 4 and 5.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
The appellants are students of the Bangalore University pursuing either the 3 year or 5 year Law course in the BES College of Law, Bangalore. The appellants are under the semester scheme of the L.L.B course. Their grievance is that they are students who have failed in certain subjects, but who are not permitted to take up the examinations for those failed subjects in the ensuing semester examination, on the footing that the university has been consistently following a practice that, the examinations for the 3 year L.L.B course which consists of six semesters and the examinations for the 5 year LL.B course which consists of ten semesters are conducted every six months. But, a failed candidate belonging to a odd semester, namely, I, III or V semester in the 3 year course or I, III, V, VII and IX semester in the 5 year course would be permitted to take the examination for the failed subject only in odd semesters and cannot lake the examination along with students sitting for the even semesters. The appellants therefore had preferred a writ petition questioning the action of the respondent-university in issuing a separate time-table prescribing the supplementary examination only for students taking the even semester.
3. The respondent - university had filed statement of objections to contend that since the year 2002, the system of semester scheme in LL.B programme has been successfully conducted without any hurdle. There are 42,000 to 45,000 students taking the 3 year and 5 year LL.B examinations. Hence, the university is driven to its limits in having to complete the process of holding the examination, declaring the results and processing the requests for re-valuation, with hardly any time left to arrange for the supplementary examinations. Therefore, the practice adopted by the university is in line with the regulations that govern several of the courses offered by the university. The petitioners were fully aware of the consistent practice and having taken admission voluntarily are bound by the university. The contention of the petitioners that there is arbitrary treatment in the university permitting supplementary examinations in respect of annual students was negated on the ground that university conducts only 3 year and 5 year LL.B semester scheme and that there is only a one time exception given for annual students to take the examination, the last of which was held in May 2009.
4. It was contended that the university has the interest of the students in view and it is the practical and administrative constraints which do not enable the university to conduct examinations for both the students of odd and even semesters at the same time. The time table for the 3 year and 5 year LL.B course examination held in the month of May was issued and a copy of the same was produced. It does not contemplate the holding of the supplementary examinations for a semester scheme, when the regulations do not permit such an exercise.
5. The respondent university has further stated by way of additional statement of objections the actual administrative difficulties that it is faced with in making such arrangement in favour of the petitioners to conduct a supplementary examination. On those contentions, the learned Single Judge has held that the university had placed before the court notifications issued by the university regulating the scheme of examination and the conditions pertaining to B.A., B.Sc., B.Com., and BBM Degree courses and in respect of all the aforementioned courses, it was noticed by the learned Single Judge that candidates were allowed to carry the uncleared or failed subjects to the subsequent semesters and those who had failed or remained absent for one or more papers were required to appear Reexamination during the successive examinations. It was however stipulated in all of the above regulations that examinations for odd or even semesters shall be conducted respectively at the end of the odd or even semester, namely, the students belonging to the odd semester could only sit in another odd semester in the failed subject. Similarly, a student of a even semester could sit for a failed subject in another even semester and not an odd semester and that the very practice was also followed by the university in respect of LL.B., 3 year and 5 year semester courses and the court has accepted the contention on behalf of the university that conducting a supplementary examination for the semester courses in the immediate semester next ensuing was practically difficult and in the absence of any regulation in this regard the university was not in a position to accommodate the petitioners. The Single Judge has then found that the regulations provided that a student may be admitted to the III semester if the student has not passed the I and II semesters but, no student would be admitted to the IV semester if the student carried more than 7 papers from the I, II, and III semesters put together. Similarly, a student cannot be admitted to the VIII semester or X semester if the student carries more than 7 papers from 1 to VII semesters and I to IX semesters respectively. Therefore, it was concluded that the scheme of examination does not pose any impediment for a student to be admitted to the III semester even if the student has not. passed in the I and II semester and hence, the learned Single Judge has opined that the interest of the students is not prejudiced and it is keeping in view the administrative expediency and practical aspects that the university has been consistently following a practice of not providing any supplementary examination for a student who has failed in the semester examination in the next immediate semester and hence, the scheme of examination cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable only because a supplementary examination is not held for a student of an odd semester alongwith an examination for a even semester or vice-versa. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to distinguish several decisions that were cited at the bar in support of the writ petition and has held that the petitioners have no statutory or fundamental right requiring the university to conduct examinations for the failed subjects alongwith examinations for the next semester unless it could be demonstrated that they are in any way prevented from prosecuting their studies by attending the classes for the next semester. It is this which is under challenge.
6. The Counsel for the appellants contends that the regulations governing the 3 year LL.B course leading to Bachelor's Degree in Law under the Semester Scheme 2001-2002 and providing for the scheme of examination stipulates that there shall be a university examination at the end of six months and that there shall be two semesters in each year. Similarly under the regulations governing the 5 year LL.B course leading to Bachelor's Degree in Law under the Semester Scheme from 2001-2002.
Scheme of examination contemplates that, there shall be a semester examination at the end of six months. It is not stipulated, in either of the above regulations, that a failed candidate in an odd Semester (Namely I, III, V or VII etc.) or an even semester, can appear for the examination in respect of such failed paper only at an examination for the next odd semester, or even semester, respectively, eleven months later. The respondents seeking to place reliance on regulations pertaining to the B.A., B.Com., B.Sc. and BBM courses to support the stand of the university has been readily accepted by the learned Single Judge. Administrative exigencies and other difficulties in permitting the appellants to appear for the failed subjects at a supplementary examination that can be conducted on a six monthly basis along with an odd or even Semester, as the case may be has been accepted. In the absence of any express stipulation to the contrary or any prohibition imposed under the regulations - it is contended that the learned Single Judge having failed to consider the grievance of the appellants results in a failure of justice. The so-called 'Practical considerations and administrative difficulties' are not greater than the inconvenience, hardship and the deprivation of opportunity to the appellants and all failed candidates, to expeditiously clear the back-log of failed subjects. It is hence contended that the stand of the respondents and the decision of the learned Single Judge is unreasonable and requires to be interfered with.
7. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents 2, 4 and 5 vehemently opposes the appeal and urges the following contentions;
The appellants seeking to urge that the university-has discriminated between students appearing at Annual examinations who are provided the benefit of supplementary examinations bi-annually while not affording such a benefit to the tailed candidates under the semester programme is not tenable as the appellants cannot be permitted to take any such examination along with students appearing for annual examinations as the course content and syllabi are not the same.
It is contended that the practice of holding examinations for the odd semester candidates and even semester candidates without allowing a mix has been consistently followed and adhered to for almost a decade. This is consistent with the regulations in respect, of all Bachelor Degree courses offered by the university. The university having arranged its affairs to utilise its Infrastructure and resources optimally has warranted the above prescription. It is contended that it is this aspect of the matter that has weighed with the learned Single Judge who had addressed the matter at length and in depth. The time table set by the university is hence rightly held to be informed by practical considerations and administrative difficulties. It is contended that the present challenge has no bearing in relation to the prayer in the writ petition or the order of the learned Single Judge. The appellants have neither indicated the particulars of their candidature or details of semesters to which they belong and the subjects and of semesters to which they seek to take examinations. There is hence no warrant to disturb a settled position insofar as the conduct of examinations by the university is concerned.
The Counsel places reliance on the following authorities:
1. Principal Patna College, Patna and Ors. v. Kalyan Srinivas Raman : AIR 1966 SC 707
2. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Dr. Bhikalal Jain and Ors. : (1992) 1 SCC 105
3. Lakshman Gouda v. The Karnataka University and Anr. : AIR 1986 KAN 239
4. Bangalore University v. Kum. Rita P.B. (1988) 2 KAR LJ 321
8. By way of reply, the Counsel for the appellants contends that the only plea raised by the respondents and accepted by the learned single Judge is that administrative exigencies are such that there can be no provision for conducting supplementary examinations for students of the semester programme as was provided for students taking the Annual examinations, line learned Counsel would submit that with the establishment of the Karnataka Law University during the academic year 2009-2010 a major burden of the respondent University is taken over by the said university and therefore there ought not to be any difficulty in providing for conducting supplementary examinations for both the odd and even semesters along with the six monthly examinations instead of staggering them for eleven months. It is not only in the interest of the students, whose number will certainly not be of unmanageable proportions, but in the larger interests of society as these are potential legal professionals.
9. In the above background, it is to be noticed that the admitted position is that there is no regulation prescribing the practice that is being followed by the respondent university over the years in conducting the examinations for the3 year and 5 year LL.B courses since the academic year 2001-2002. For the crop of students joining the courses in the year 2007 the position insofar as the scheme of examinations would be as follows:
Three Year LL.B (6 Semesters)
December 2007 - I SemesterApril 2008 - II SemesterDecember 2008 - III SemesterApril 2009 - IV SemesterDecember 2009 - V SemesterApril 2010 - VI SemesterFive Year LL.B (10 Semesters) December 2007 - I Semester April 2008 - II SemesterDecember 2008 - III SemesterApril 2009 - IV SemesterDecember 2009 - V SemesterApril 2010 - VI SemesterDecember 2010 - VII SemesterApril 2011 - VIII semesterDecember 2011 - IX semesterApril20l2 - X semester
10. The university has established a practice of conducting examinations for 'odd' semesters (I, III, V, VII and IX) only with 'Odd' semesters and vice versa for the 'even' semesters. As for instance, a failed candidate in the I semester can take the examination, for the papers in which he has failed, only in the III semester and not the II semester. Similarly a foiled candidate in II semester can take the examination only in the IV semester and not in the III semester. Added to this, though the student of 3 year LL.B course is admitted to the III semester even if the student has not passed in all the papers of I and II semester, the student will not be admitted to the IV semester if the back-log of foiled papers exceeds 7 of the I, II and II semesters put together. This is as observed by the learned Single Judge though the regulations indicate that there shall be a total carry over from the I to VI Semester. So is the ease of a student of the 5 year LL.B course - if the student carries more than 7 papers in the I to VII semester put together or I to IX semester the student will not be permitted to take the VIII or X semester, respectively.
11. In the above scenario, the practice that has been adopted by the university is prompted admittedly by university's convenience to conduct the examinations at a manageable pace on account of the work involved and not for any other object. The learned Single judge has adopted a highly sensitive attitude in holding that this Court ought not to interfere in academic, and administrative matters of the university and that no right or interest, of the appellants or the student community is involved. We do not accede to the view that that students have no right to seek the intervention of this Court in a circumstance such as the above. We also do not agree that the courts ought not to interfere in academic or administrative affairs of the university and sit in judgment of their decisions in the matter of conducting examinations. As in the instant, case there is no regulation prescribing the practice that is adopted by the university. The fact that it is in vogue since inception of the courses of study is no reason to perpetuate it. Reasonableness and justice demands that the students of the 3 year and 5 year LL.B course be given the valuable opportunity of appearing for failed papers of the previous semesters in every ensuing six monthly examination. So that the regulation as regards the clearing of subject, papers to be eligible to be admitted to IV semester - which is barred if more than 7 papers are carried over from I, II and III semesters together and similarly to be admitted to the VII or X semester - which is barred if more than 7 papers are carried from I to VII semester or I to IX semesters, respectively. The present, practice of the university will debar a student who has, for instance, 7 papers to clear at the end of the VII semester for another six months and at the end of IX semester another six months and finally if he fails in any subject in the X semester he loses yet another six months. The calamity of a student losing two years of a career in law is foisted by the university on account of 'administrative difficulties'.
12. This Court would hesitate to intervene in the face of a rule or regulation which is informed with reason and is intended to achieve a desired objective. In the case on hand, it is only a practice adopted by the university which is claimed as a hardened precedent. Even if there is some inconvenience and hardship in conducting supplementary examinations every six months along with the regular semester examinations - the university is required to make appropriate provision for the same - in the absence of a regulation in this regard, or rather any prohibition. The several decision cited by the Counsel for the respondent are rendered in different circumstances and therefore would have no bearing on the present facts and circumstances.
13. The relevant regulation governing the scheme of examination applicable to the impugned course, reads as hereunder:
H) Scheme of Examination
There shall be a semester examination at the end of six months. The Examination in each paper shall be for a maximum of one hundred marks and three hours duration.
Note: 1. Practicals will be conducted through out the year.
2. For 5 year LL.B course 6 + 2 hours per week per subject is fixed.
XX XX XX
14. From a careful reading of the above regulation, the only possible interpretation would be that there shall be a semester examination at the end of every six months. The question of two possible interpretations does not arise as in the case of B.A., B.Sc.B.Com., and B.BM courses, as the regulations pertaining to those courses specifically provide that, the examinations for 'odd/even semester shall be conducted respectively at the end of odd/even semester (odd with odd, even with even).'
15. Of course, our attention was also drawn by the learned Counsel appearing for the university to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Patna College, Patna v. Kalyan Srinivas Raman : AIR 1966 SC 707, wherein it was held that the question involved required the interpretation of a regulation framed by the Academic Council of a university and therefore, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant, to issue a writ of certiorari where it is plain that the regulation in question is capable of two constructions and it would generally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by such authorities on the relevant regulation appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction which it is pleased to accept.
16. The learned Counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of University of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Dr. Bhikalal Jain and Ors. : 1992 (1) SCC 105 wherein it is held that in matters relating to educational Institutions, if two interpretations are possible, the Courts would ordinarily be reluctant to accept that, interpretation which would upset and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would accept the interpretation made by such educational authorities.
17. Hence, the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel in the case of Dr. Uma Kant, supra, is not applicable as we do not see any ambiguity nor any inconsistency in interpreting the relevant regulation relating to the scheme of examination applicable to three or five year LL.B. courses referred to above. We do not see any reason to either add or substitute or import any words into the regulations applicable to the 3 year and 5 year LL.B. course from the regulations applicable to B.A., B.Sc., 13.Com., and B.BM courses which may provide for conduct of examinations odd with odd and even with even semesters.
When the appellants seek relief strictly based on regulation applicable to them, the denial of such right, in our considered opinion, is arbitrary and unreasonable.
18. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that, the Courts should go slow In the matter of education policy of the university contrary to the interpretation which would upset or reverse the established practice in vogue and the decision taken by such educational authorities, in our considered opinion, does not impress us, as the said policy itself is contrary to the regulations framed by the university themselves which are applicable to the 3 year or 5 year LL.B. courses.
19. Applying the rule of liberal interpretation, in view of the plain language employed in the regulations relating to the scheme of examination applicable for the 3 year and 5 year LL.B. course, we do not see any reason to deny the relief as prayed for by the appellants as the 'administrative difficulties' projected by the university are nothing but possible hurdles that can be overcome and hence do not stand the test of reasonableness.
20. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The order of learned single judge is set aside. The respondent-university is directed to take steps to conduct supplementary examinations for the 3 year and 5 year LL.B courses under the semester scheme on a six monthly basis along with the regular semester examinations, line bar of not permitting a student to take the next semester examination if he or she has not cleared the minimum prescribed papers shall remain, and is not disturbed.
Insofar as the present ensuing examination is concerned, the university shall conduct supplementary examinations for the eligible failed candidates within such reasonable time as is required as the time to make necessary arrangements is short, within a period of sixty days.