Abhay Kushwaha Vs. the Chairperson - Court Judgment

W.P. No.1848/2012 13.12.2012 Shri Vivek Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioners have challenged order Annexure P-5 by which the academic programme of the petitioners have been terminated with immediate effect and another order dated 09.01.2012 by which an appeal preferred by the petitioners against order Annexure P-5 was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the academic programme was terminated by the respondents because of poor academic performance and on a belief that the performance of the petitioners cannot improve in future. But after the decision Annexure P-5 the respondents have taken another decision on 18.06.2012, proposed amendment in the Manual and it have been decided that in place of termination, one academic drop and thereafter one academic break be given to the students so that they may improve their performance. It is also submitted that specific reasons have been assigned in the decision of the Senate in its meeting dated 18.06.2012 and in the light of the aforesaid subsequent event, the respondents No.1 and 2 may be directed to reconsider the matter afresh. Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that though a decision has been taken by the Senate but it requires approval from the Ministry of Human Resources and till date it has not been approved so that the petitioners cannot get any benefit of the decision of the Senate. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the light of the same decision, benefits have already been extended to other 25 students but the petitioners have been deprived. On raising such contention, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that petitioners herein may be directed to prefer an appeal afresh in the light of the decision of the Senate dated 18.06.2012. From the perusal of the decision of the Senate dated 18.06.2012, we find that a decision was taken by the Senate which reads thus:- "Senate/2011-12/3.03.02 APER and Termination Cases: Convener, UGCS & PGCS presented Academic Performance Evaluation report (APER) for the Semester II, 2011-12 (SENATE/2011-12/3/Annexure- II). Based on the report, academic programmes of 25 UG students were recommended for termination and they were given the opportunity to appeal as per the provisions given in the B. Tech manual. Appeals of all 25 students were placed before the Senate for consideration. At this point members expressed concern over the increasing number of termination cases in each year. Members were apprised of the fact that most of the students who come from different social and academic backgrounds find it difficult to cope with the complexities in the early years of their academic programme. This results in their poor academic performance and termination of programme. Also their performance gets affected in higher level courses due to poor understanding of concepts and methods in core courses. The matter of termination was discussed in detail amongst the members of the senate and one of the members suggested that word Academic Probation may be termed as Academic Improvement and Academic Termination may be termed Academic Drop. It was also suggested that students be given the chance to complete their UG courses in maximum 6 years and PG courses in maximum 2.5 years. Appealed students against their termination will be placed on one year academic break and they will be allowed to clear their backlogs and improve the courses in which they obtained lower than 'C' grade. At the end of one year they should obtain a CPI  5.0 before registering in the next semester. Keeping this in view, a decision to make the following modifications in the existing rules for UG programme was taken unanimously, related to inadequate academic performance, after long deliberations. Section 5 of the B. Tech. manual be modified as below- 1. Academic probation be renamed as Academic Improvement.

2. If the academic performance of a student under "academic improvement" in a semester does not improve (either has not passed at least three courses or has not secured a minimum SPI of 4.5) at the end of the semester, the student will have the following two options and will be allowed to choose only one in consultation with his parents/guardian. a. Academic Drop: The student drops his programme and leaves the Institute with immediate effect without getting any degree. b. Academic Break: The student will be put on academic break for one year and will be allowed to improve his performance in courses in which he scored a grade less than C (i.e. D + or D or F). The student will also be allowed to complete the courses dropped due to his/her poor academic performance. A student can opt for courses up to the maximum credits of 18 (4 to 5 credits less than normal semester load). It is expected that student will improve his academic performance to get a CPI of 5.0 at the end of academic break.

3. At the end of the academic break, if a student is able to score CPI of 5.0 or more, he will be allowed to continue his programme with the junior batch as a regular student.

4. In case a student is not able to score CPI of 5.0 at the end of the academic break, his programme will be dropped with immediate effect. This will be termed as "Academic Drop". During deliberations some of the members raised the issue of increasing the maximum duration of undergraduate programme beyond 6 years. After deliberations, the Senate unanimously concluded that the present upper limit of six years be maintained. After passing the above modifications in rules, the Senate accepted appeals of all 25 undergraduate students by applying the rules mentioned above."

From the perusal of the aforesaid, it appears that Senate have already taken a decision to amend the manual and after the decision, appeal of 25 undergraduate students were accepted. As because of the subsequent events, there is substantial change in the manual, and the petitioners are entitled for the benefits of aforesaid, we find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with following directions:- 1. Petitioners may prefer a fresh appeal against the order Annexure P-5 to the Senate within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

2. In case such an appeal is filed, the Senate shall reconsider the appeal in the light of subsequent decision of Senate dated 18.06.2012, without being influenced from its earlier decision dated 09.01.2012, and after considering the case of the petitioners sympathetically, the Senate shall communicate the decision to the petitioners forthwith. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm