Associate Dean/incharge Academic and Administration, Faculty of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Srinagar Vs. University of Agricultural Science and Technology and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- syed bashir-ud-din, j.1. respondents mohd. hyder and javid ahmad baba are students of bvsc course of sheri-kashmir university of agricultural sciences and technology shalimar, hereinafter, 'skuast'. they have been admitted for the session march, 1995. both have been dropped from the programme of bvsc and allied programme vide notifications dated 26-6-97 (annexure p6 and p7 to main writ petition) because they failed to secure the minimum og pa of 1.250 required for continuation under regulation 16 of regulations on resident instruction. these notifications (annexures p6 and p7) are under challenge in the writ jurisdiction of this court. the writ petition is at pre-admission stage. co-extensive with the main petition, operation of the impugned orders where under petitioners were dropped from bvsc and ah programme are stayed, subject to the objections of the other side. this interlocutory order of stay of the notifications came up before the learned single bench of this court on 26-12-1997, the learned single bench with a view to determine the effect of stayed impugned orders on the petitioners, in the light of their continuance in the course and the session from which they will be deemed to be continued, if so, passed an order calling upon the respondents to provide the court following information :--'(1) whether petitioners have attended the academic course of the 3rd semester, if so, what is the eligibility criteria for appearing in the examination for 3rd semester and when is the examination going to be held, (ii) when did the classes for 3rd and 4th semester start for the year 1996-97 and when they are likely to start for the next academic year. this information should be furnished within four weeks. (iii) in the meanwhile, the petitioners be put to external examination for the first and second semester as prayed by them in para 25(1)(b) of the petition, within a period of one month so that they are assessed in accordance with their prayer.' 2. the skuast feeling aggrieved of this order filed the present l.p.a. with regard to the last limb of the order in terms requiring the respondents to put the petitioners to external examination for the first and second semester in terms of their prayer in para 25(1)(b) of their writ petition.3. that having examined the record of this case, we find that the facts and circumstances necessary for purpose of this appeal are succinctly produced hereunder:--skuast has been established under sheri-kashmir university of agriculture act, j982. among other things, it is to impart training in bvsc and a.h. course to the selected students. the writ petitioners before the writ court were selected to undergo courses in bvsc and a.h in the academic year 1994-95. whereas, as per the writ petitioners they were to be assessed and evaluated by the respondents under indian veterinary council act, 1984 and rules and regulations of 1993 framed thereunder. in terms of the said rules, the writ petitioners were to be assessedand evaluated for 50% internally and for remaining 50% through board/external examination. the university has assessed the petitioners wrongly under regulation 16 of resident regulation instructions, hereinafter referred to as 'rri'. the respondents-skuast and its officials are contesting this stand and the cause they are projecting before the court is that the students are evaluated and examined for the course and programme in bvsc and ah semesters, under rri after the board of management of the university in its meeting on 3-3-1997 adopted the resolution. the indian veterinary council of india regulations 1993 is not applicable to the state of j. and k. and consequently rules and regulations framed thereunder are also not extended to the slate. by the impugned direction, the hon'ble single judge has issued a direction to the skuast to put the aforesaid students to board/external examination for the first and second semesters, so that they could be assessed in terms of the petitioners prayer with a view to enable the writ court 'to pass further orders and directions in the matter. the order no where speaks that the writ court has decided that the students are necessarily to be examined and evaluated on external examination under the veterinary council of india system. the court has simply passed directions with a view to seek information on the subject and not to pass a final order so as to determine whether the students are to be examined under veterinary council of india or rri system.4. the counsel for respondents' submits that the appeal in this case is incompetent and not maintainable. he has referred to section 47 of skuast act, 1982 which reads as under :--'47. legal proceedings :--- all suits and other legal proceedings by or against the university shall be instituted prosecuted or defended on behalf of the university by the registrar or any other officer specifically nominated in this behalf by the vice-chancellor'. it is manifest that the registrar or an officer specifically nominated by vice-chancellor there to alone is empowered to prosecute or to defend on behalf of skuast suits and other legal proceedings by or against it. here the lpa is filed by associate dean/incharge academic and administration, faculty of veterinary science and animal husbandry, shohama aluchteng, srinagar. itis not admittedly filed by the university who in fact has been shown as respondent no. 2 in the appeal. it is not also shown that the associate dean/incharge academic and administration who has filed the appeal, has been nominated, much less specifically nominated by the vice-chancellor to file appeal on behalf of the skuast. the counsel mr. g. a. lone submits that the appeal could not be filed by registrar or a nominated officer of the vice-chancellor for the reason that the registrar and vice-chancellor were headquartered at jammu and not available at srinagar. since the period prescribed by the hon'ble judge for compliance with the part of the order impugned in the lpa was short and expiring, therefore, the matter could not a wait and appeal was accordingly filed.5. the argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the simple reason, that if a certain act is to be done in a certain mode and manner as provided by statutory provisions that act has to be done in that particular mode and manner alone. section 47 of the skuast act authorise only the registrar or the nominated officer to appeal for the university and no other officer or person for any reason howsoever strong can file appeal, on behalf of the university. the appeal could have been filed at jammu where the registrar and the vice-chancellor were stated to be headquartered in the last week of jan. 1998, if as per counsel no time was left to file the appeal against the impugned order at srinagar and the matter could not have awaited any further.6. in our view and for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is incompetent and not maintainable.7. the question whether v.c.l regulations/or rr instructions apply to the writ petitioners/ students case, for purposes of assessing/evaluating their performance in examination in the first and second semesters in terms of their prayer, is a matter for the learned single judge to decide. this question does not directly arise before this appellate forum. however, we may say that keeping in view the document placed on record, the question of applicability of the regulations for assessing the students in the examination is a moot question. the hon'ble judge hearing the writ is yet to pronounce the verdict on this question. for our purpose the direction of putting the petitioners/students to external examination for first and second semester with a view to assess them interms of para 25(1)(b) of petition need not be interfered with.8. the counsel for the respondents submits that the rule providing for dropping of respondent/ students for poor academic performance has been brought into force/amended after the students admission to the bvsc and allied programme and their promotion in 3rd semester, therefore, rule/regulation providing for achieving prescribed grade point for continuance in the programme is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, moreso, when the respondent-students have not been given effective opportunity in terms of the applicable rules to face external/ board examination and to improve their academic performance. the counsel in support has cited air 1996 allahabad 271 : (1996 all lj 924). as the matter is yet to be determined and the learned single judge is to consider and determine the contentious issues raised by the parties including above submissions. we find it appropriate that this appellate forum should not express any opinion on this matter. the matter is left to be taken up before the learned single judge.8a. with the result and for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal merits to be dismissed and we accordingly dismiss the appeal.