M. Hemananda and ors. Vs. the Secretary, Education Department and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- l.l.b. course: [b.s. patil, j] semester scheme for l.l.b course - restriction as to take up examination for the failed subjects in the immediately ensuring semester examination conducted by university university insisting that they have to write their examinations in odd semester if they have failed in odd semester or even semester if they have failed in even semester held, the procedure followed to allow the failed students to appear for the failed subjects of the odd semester along with the odd and even semester examination along with the even depending on the nature of the semester f the failed subjects is informed by practical consideration and the administrative difficulties. it is not for the court to sit in judgment over these matters and come to a conclusion that supplementary examination ought to have been held. petitioner-students are not in any manner prevented from getting admitted the next semester based on the results in the previous semester. the only requirements imposed on them is that for failed subjects they have to take the examination along with the even semester if the failed subjects are in the even semester or odd semester if the failed subjects are in the odd semester. it is quite understandable that the university intends to avoid duplication work of setting question papers, conducting examinations and evaluating the answer papers by separately conducting supplementary examinations in between the semester examinations. petitioners have no statutory or fundamental right to require the university to conduct the examinations for their failed subjects along with the examinations for the next semester. as long as it is not shown to the court that such delay will prevent them from prosecuting their studies by getting themselves admitted to the next semester, it cannot be said that the interest of such students are in any manner jeopardized. it may be true that the petitioners who are made to appear for the failed subjects after a lapse of nearly one year may have to strain their memory and to put in better efforts to face the examination held after a lapse of one year. but, that by itself cannot warrant interference by this court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. the explanation furnished to the court by the university stating under what circumstances such practice is followed not only for the semester courses in law examination but also in other courses such as b.a., b.sc., b.com., is quite reasonable and acceptable.orderb.s. patil, j.1. in these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to permit them to write the examinations for the failed subjects as per the time-table issued on 08.04.2008.2. all the petitioners are the students of bangalore university studying in either the three years or five years law course. it is not in dispute that the semester scheme for llb course is introduced and the petitioners are taking examinations under the said scheme.3. the grievance of the petitioners is that they are not permitted to take up the examinations for the failed subjects in the immediately ensuing semester examination conducted and that the university is insisting that they have to write their examinations in odd semester if they have failed in odd semester or even semester if they have failed in even semester.4. counsel appearing for the petitioners taking me through the regulations framed by the university known as 'regulations governing the three year ll.b course leading to bachelor in degree in law and semester scheme 2001-02' produced at annexure-r submits that in the scheme of examination provided there is no such prohibition for a student who has failed in one semester to appear for the failed subjects in the next semester along with his regular subjects. it is his submission that in the absence of any such prohibition, the university cannot prevent the petitioners from availing an opportunity of appearing for the failed subjects in the semester examination which is now scheduled to be held in the month of december, 2009. counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the practice now followed by the respondent-university is without authority of law, illegal and arbitrary. he has also contended that even in the other universities of the state, such a procedure is followed and only in the case of bangalore university that too with regard to law course, this procedure is adopted, thereby practicing discrimination against the petitioner-students. in support of this contention, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on several judgments in the case of bangalore development authority, by its commissioner, bangalore and ors. v. p. anjanappa and ors. : ilr 2003 kar 1471 and k. krishnappa v. registrar evaluation : ilr 1991 kar 4111.5. the respondent-university has filed statement of objections. it has contended that with effect from the year 2002 semester scheme is introduced for the law course and the same is governing the field and is operating successfully. it has asserted that on an average there are nearly 42000 to 45000 students taking 3 and 5 years law course examinations and after the examinations are held the results have to be declared within a stipulated time and thereafter the process of revaluation also has to be undertaken. thus, there would be hardly any time left for conducting supplementary examinations for the semester scheme. it is further contended that the petitioners are not entitled to demand an opportunity to appear for supplementary examinations in the immediate next semester when the rules do not provide for the same.6. in the light of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the bangalore university is providing opportunity to appear for the supplementary examinations in the immediate next semester to all other students studying in other courses such as b.a., b.sc, b.com., bbm., etc., and that students pursuing law course that too in the semester scheme are only denied of this benefit, a direction was issued to the respondent-university to ascertain the procedure followed in this regard in respect of other courses conducted by the respondent-university. in response to the same, counsel appearing for the respondent-university has filed a memo enclosing the notifications issued by the university regulating the scheme of examination and the condition pertaining to keeping the terms with reference to b.a., b.sc, b.com., bbm., degree courses. as can be seen from the relevant regulations made available in regard to all the aforementioned courses, it is clear that candidates are allowed to carry the uncleared subjects to the subsequent semester/semesters as provided thereunder and such of those candidates who have been failed/remained absent for one or more papers who are called as repeaters are required to appear for examinations in such paper/papers during the successive examinations. however, it is stipulated therein that examination for odd/even semester shall be conducted respectively at the end of odd/even semester (odd with odd, even with even). placing reliance on these regulations and also the practice followed by the university for its convenience and to regulate its affairs effectively, counsel for the respondent-university submits that even in respect of other courses such as b.a., b.sc, b.com., bbm., degree courses the students are permitted to appear for the failed subjects not in the immediate next semester examination, but along with even semester if the failed subjects are in the even semester and odd semester, if the failed subjects are in the odd semester. it is also submitted that as conducting supplementary examination for the semester course in the immediate next semester is found practically difficult, no provision is made in the rules for the same. counsel has further contended that the rules framed in this regard by the respondent-university by way of notification issued cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary.7. having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the materials on record, i find that the notification issued by the respondent-university does not provide for supplementary examination for a semester student who has failed in any particular semester by providing an opportunity to take the examination in the immediate next semester. the relevant regulations providing for the scheme of examination states as under: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 throughout the year.(2) for 5 year ll.b course 6 + 2 hours per week per subject is fixed.8. it is also relevant to note that the regulations provide that a student may be admitted to 3rd semester, if he/she has not passed 1st and 2nd semesters, but no students shall be admitted to the 4th semester, if he/she carries more than 7 papers from 1st, 2nd and 3rd semesters put together. so also no student can be admitted to the 8th semester or 10th semester, if he/she carries more than 7 papers from 1st to 7th semester and 1st to 9th semester respectively. it is thus clear from the scheme of examination that there is no impediment for a student to be admitted to the 3rd semester even if he has not passed in the 1st and 2 nd semester. however, only if he has to be admitted to the 4th semester, the requirement is that he should not carry more than 7 papers from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd semesters. likewise, for a student to be admitted to 8th or 10th semester, the requirment is that he shall not carry more than 7 papers from 1st to 7th semester and 1st semester to 9th semester respectively. it is in this background that the counsel for the respondent-university rightly submits that without in any manner prejudicing the interest of the students and keeping in mind the administrative expediency and practical aspects, the university has decided and has been following the practice of not providing any supplementary examination for a student who has failed in the semester examination in the next immediate semester. this procedure followed by the university viewed in the context of and in the light of the regulations governing the scheme of examination and the provision made for the students to get themselves admitted to the 3rd, 8th and 10th semesters by carrying certain number of papers though failed in the previous semesters cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. the students are not deprived of entering the next semester only because the supplementary examination is not held.9. the procedure followed to allow the failed students to appear for the failed subjects of the odd semester along with the odd and even semester examinations along with the even depending on the nature of the semester of the failed subjects is informed by practical considerations and the administrative difficulties. it is not for this court to sit in judgment over these matters and come to a conclusion that supplementary examinations ought to have been held. the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no relevance to this aspect of the matter. the ratio laid down in the case of k. krishnappa v. registrar evaluation : ilr 1991 kar 4111 which deals with cancellation of examination of all candidates who had indulged in mass copying has nothing to do with the case on hand. the observations made therein are relevant in the facts and circumstances of the said case. likewise, the judgment in the case of bangalore development authority, by its commissioner, bangalore and ors. v. p. anjanappa and ors. : ilr 2003 kar 1471 wherein it is observed that 'justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice, law has to bend before justice', also has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of this case.10. the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that fundamental right of the petitioner-students under article 21 of the constitution of india is violated by not providing an opportunity for supplementary examination conducted for semester students is misconceived as there is no fundamental right much less as contemplated under article 21 of the constitution which is vitiated in the instant case.11. as already stated, petitioner-students are not in any manner prevented from getting admitted to the next semester based on the results in the previous semester. the only requirement imposed on them is that for failed subjects they have to take the examination along with the even semester if the failed subjects are in the even semester or odd semester if the failed subjects are in the odd semester. it is quite understandable that the university intends to avoid duplication work of setting question papers, conducting examinations and evaluating the answer papers by separately conducting supplementary examinations in between the semester examinations.12. petitioners have no statutory or fundamental right to require the respondent-university to conduct the examinations for their failed subjects along with the examinations for the next semester. as long as it is not shown to the court that such delay will prevent them from prosecuting their studies by getting themselves admitted to the next semester, it cannot be said that the interest of such students are in any manner jeopardized. it may be true that the petitioners who are made to appear for the failed subjects after a lapse of nearly one year may have to strain their memory and to put in better efforts to face the examination held after a lapse of one year. but, that by itself cannot warrant interference by this court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. the explanation furnished to the court by the university stating under what circumstances such practice is followed not only for the semester courses in law examination but also in other courses such as b.a., b.sc., b.com., bbm., is quite reasonable and acceptable. hence, there being no merit in these writ petitions, the same are dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

B.S. Patil, J.

1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to permit them to write the examinations for the failed subjects as per the time-table issued on 08.04.2008.

2. All the petitioners are the students of Bangalore University studying in either the three years or five years Law Course. It is not in dispute that the Semester Scheme for LLB course is introduced and the petitioners are taking examinations under the said Scheme.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are not permitted to take up the examinations for the failed subjects in the immediately ensuing semester examination conducted and that the University is insisting that they have to write their examinations in odd semester if they have failed in odd semester or even semester if they have failed in even semester.

4. Counsel appearing for the petitioners taking me through the Regulations framed by the University known as 'regulations Governing the three Year LL.B Course Leading to Bachelor in degree in Law and semester Scheme 2001-02' produced at Annexure-R submits that in the scheme of examination provided there is no such prohibition for a student who has failed in one semester to appear for the failed subjects in the next semester along with his regular subjects. It is his submission that in the absence of any such prohibition, the University cannot prevent the petitioners from availing an opportunity of appearing for the failed subjects in the semester examination which is now scheduled to be held in the month of December, 2009. Counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the practice now followed by the respondent-University is without authority of law, illegal and arbitrary. He has also contended that even in the other Universities of the State, such a procedure is followed and only In the case of Bangalore University that too with regard to law course, this procedure is adopted, thereby practicing discrimination against the petitioner-students. In support of this contention, Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on several judgments in the case of Bangalore Development Authority, by its Commissioner, Bangalore and Ors. v. P. Anjanappa and Ors. : ILR 2003 Kar 1471 and K. Krishnappa v. Registrar Evaluation : ILR 1991 Kar 4111.

5. The respondent-University has filed statement of objections. It has contended that with effect from the year 2002 Semester Scheme is introduced for the Law course and the same is governing the field and is operating successfully. It has asserted that on an average there are nearly 42000 to 45000 students taking 3 and 5 years law course examinations and after the examinations are held the results have to be declared within a stipulated time and thereafter the process of revaluation also has to be undertaken. Thus, there would be hardly any time left for conducting supplementary examinations for the Semester Scheme. It is further contended that the petitioners are not entitled to demand an opportunity to appear for supplementary examinations in the immediate next semester when the rules do not provide for the same.

6. In the light of the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Bangalore University is providing opportunity to appear for the supplementary examinations in the immediate next semester to all other students studying in other courses such as B.A., B.Sc, B.Com., BBM., etc., and that students pursuing Law course that too in the Semester Scheme are only denied of this benefit, a direction was issued to the respondent-University to ascertain the procedure followed in this regard in respect of other courses conducted by the respondent-University. In response to the same, Counsel appearing for the respondent-University has filed a memo enclosing the Notifications issued by the University regulating the Scheme of examination and the condition pertaining to keeping the terms with reference to B.A., B.Sc, B.Com., BBM., degree courses. As can be seen from the relevant Regulations made available in regard to all the aforementioned courses, it is clear that candidates are allowed to carry the uncleared subjects to the subsequent semester/semesters as provided thereunder and such of those candidates who have been failed/remained absent for one or more papers who are called as repeaters are required to appear for examinations in such paper/papers during the successive examinations. However, it is stipulated therein that examination for odd/even semester shall be conducted respectively at the end of odd/even semester (odd with odd, even with even). Placing reliance on these Regulations and also the practice followed by the University for its convenience and to regulate its affairs effectively, Counsel for the respondent-University submits that even in respect of other courses such as B.A., B.Sc, B.Com., BBM., degree courses the students are permitted to appear for the failed subjects not in the immediate next semester examination, but along with even semester if the failed subjects are in the even semester and odd semester, if the failed subjects are in the odd semester. It is also submitted that as conducting supplementary examination for the semester course in the immediate next semester is found practically difficult, no provision is made in the rules for the same. Counsel has further contended that the rules framed in this regard by the respondent-University by way of Notification issued cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary.

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the materials on record, I find that the Notification issued by the respondent-University does not provide for supplementary examination for a semester student who has failed in any particular semester by providing an opportunity to take the examination in the immediate next semester. The relevant regulations providing for the Scheme of Examination states as under:

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 throughout the year.

(2) For 5 year LL.B course 6 + 2 hours per week per subject is fixed.

8. It is also relevant to note that the Regulations provide that a student may be admitted to 3rd semester, if he/she has not passed 1st and 2nd semesters, but no students shall be admitted to the 4th semester, if he/she carries more than 7 papers from 1st, 2nd and 3rd semesters put together. So also no student can be admitted to the 8th semester or 10th semester, if he/she carries more than 7 papers from 1st to 7th semester and 1st to 9th semester respectively. It is thus clear from the Scheme of Examination that there is no impediment for a student to be admitted to the 3rd semester even if he has not passed in the 1st and 2 nd semester. However, only if he has to be admitted to the 4th semester, the requirement is that he should not carry more than 7 papers from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd semesters. Likewise, for a student to be admitted to 8th or 10th semester, the requirment is that he shall not carry more than 7 papers from 1st to 7th semester and 1st semester to 9th semester respectively. It is in this background that the Counsel for the respondent-University rightly submits that without in any manner prejudicing the interest of the students and keeping in mind the administrative expediency and practical aspects, the University has decided and has been following the practice of not providing any supplementary examination for a student who has failed in the semester examination in the next immediate semester. This procedure followed by the University viewed in the context of and in the light of the Regulations governing the Scheme of Examination and the provision made for the students to get themselves admitted to the 3rd, 8th and 10th semesters by carrying certain number of papers though failed in the previous semesters cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. The students are not deprived of entering the next semester only because the supplementary examination is not held.

9. The procedure followed to allow the failed students to appear for the failed subjects of the odd semester along with the odd and even semester examinations along with the even depending on the nature of the semester of the failed subjects is informed by practical considerations and the administrative difficulties. It is not for this Court to sit in judgment over these matters and come to a conclusion that supplementary examinations ought to have been held. The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners have no relevance to this aspect of the matter. The ratio laid down in the case of K. Krishnappa v. Registrar Evaluation : ILR 1991 Kar 4111 which deals with cancellation of examination of all candidates who had indulged in mass copying has nothing to do with the case on hand. The observations made therein are relevant in the facts and circumstances of the said case. Likewise, the judgment in the case of Bangalore Development Authority, by its Commissioner, Bangalore and Ors. v. P. Anjanappa and Ors. : ILR 2003 Kar 1471 wherein it is observed that 'Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of Justice, Law has to bend before Justice', also has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of this case.

10. The contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners stating that fundamental right of the petitioner-students under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated by not providing an opportunity for supplementary examination conducted for semester students is misconceived as there is no fundamental right much less as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution which is vitiated in the Instant case.

11. As already stated, petitioner-students are not in any manner prevented from getting admitted to the next semester based on the results in the previous semester. The only requirement imposed on them is that for failed subjects they have to take the examination along with the even semester if the failed subjects are in the even semester or odd semester if the failed subjects are in the odd semester. It is quite understandable that the University intends to avoid duplication work of setting question papers, conducting examinations and evaluating the answer papers by separately conducting supplementary examinations in between the semester examinations.

12. Petitioners have no statutory or fundamental right to require the respondent-University to conduct the examinations for their failed subjects along with the examinations for the next semester. As long as it is not shown to the Court that such delay will prevent them from prosecuting their studies by getting themselves admitted to the next semester, it cannot be said that the interest of such students are in any manner jeopardized. It may be true that the petitioners who are made to appear for the failed subjects after a lapse of nearly one year may have to strain their memory and to put in better efforts to face the examination held after a lapse of one year. But, that by itself cannot warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The explanation furnished to the Court by the University stating under what circumstances such practice is followed not only for the semester courses in Law examination but also in other courses such as B.A., B.Sc., B.Com., BBM., is quite reasonable and acceptable. Hence, there being no merit in these writ petitions, the same are dismissed.