Civil Writ Petition No. 15265 of 2009 1 ***** Kanav Zutshi versus Punjab Engineering College and another Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. ***** The petitioner has got admission in Punjab Engineering College under the NRI quota on 27.07.2008. The petitioner has appeared in two semesters examination. He, however, was not able to achieve the requisite standards in the examinations. The petitioner would attribute his poor performance to his health. The petitioner has averred that he met with an accident and suffered injuries. Despite that, he had appeared in three papers of first semester out of five. He could not appear in two papers due to shortage of lecturers. The petitioner could clear two papers and got re-appear in one subject. The petitioner had received injury before he was admitted to the Engineering College. He only pleads that the injury got aggravated and because of which the petitioner claims to have remained bed ridden and thus has suffered the consequences. As per the petitioner, he has undergone a surgery and thereafter had gone to join the college but was refused entry/admission. The petitioner was informed on 21.08.2009 that his B.E. Programme has been terminated. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has deposited sum of Rs. 1,94,800/- towards fee and Civil Writ Petition No. 15265 of 2009 2 around Rs. 25,000/- as hostel charges but despite that his admission has been terminated. In the reply filed, it is disclosed that duration of the course is 4 years and is divided into eight semesters. During his first semester, the petitioner was registered for six courses. As per the reply, the petitioner failed to fulfill the requirement of attendance, which is 80% of the scheduled lectures, tutorials and practical in two courses. The shortage of attendance was reported by the course Instructors and as such he was not allowed to appear in two courses at the end of the semester. It is otherwise pointed out that on the basis of poor academic performance in the first semester, the petitioner was put on probation during second semester, under Rule 8.1 of Rules & Procedures for Undergraduate Programmes (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') and letter to this effect was issued. Copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure R-5. Rule 8.1 of the rules reads as under:- “ The academic performance of each undergraduate student is reviewed at the end of a regular semester and is considered inadequate if his/her CGPA is less than or equal to 5.0 and the number of cumulative earned credits in the semester are less than 15. Such a student is termed as “Academically Deficient” and is put on 'Academic Probation'. A letter of 'Warning' is issued to the student and a copy of the letter is sent to Guardian/Parents. In the next regular semester such a student is permitted to take reduced load by one or two Civil Writ Petition No. 15265 of 2009 3 courses but is required to obtain an SGPA of more than or equal to 4.5, and the earned credits in that semester should be greater than 15. A student continues on academic probation as long as his CGPA is less than 5.0.” The petitioner was asked to give undertaking that he would show a minimum level of performance. During the 2nd semester, the petitioner was registered in seven semester courses but he failed to fulfill the attendance and accordingly was not allowed to appear in the semester examination in 4 courses as per the condition given under Rule 10.1 of the rules. It is pointed out that the petitioner failed to fulfill the academic probation in second semester and could not obtain the minimum 15 credits and SGPA of at least 4.5. Accordingly, it is stated that his course is terminated. Mr. Bhan, on the basis of pleading has made two fold submissions. He would first refer to the provisions of Rule 10.1 of the rules which regulate the requirement of attendance. As per this rule, student who does not fulfill 80% of the attendance of scheduled lectures is not allowed to appear for the end semester examination and is required to repeat the whole course. The counsel, accordingly, submits that the benefit of this provisions, if given to the petitioner, would have permitted him to complete the course even if he had not obtained the requisite standard. Counsel for the petitioner prays that his case may also be considered, especially so, when he had taken admission in the NRI quota. Rule 10.1 of the rules only provides for requirement of attendance. The student, who does not fulfill the minimum Civil Writ Petition No. 15265 of 2009 4 requirement of lecturers, is not to be allowed to appear for the end semester examination and may have to repeat the whole course. Course here is not the semester. The reading of the provisions would mean that the 'Course' is a subject alone. The petitioner was not permitted to appear in two of the subjects whereas he was permitted to appear in the examination of 4 subjects, where he had fulfilled the requirement of lectures. Rule 10.1 of the rules provides for attendance and upon that would depend the right to appear in the examinations. Thereafter, the petitioner was further required to achieve the Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA ) as per Rule 8.1 of the Rules. Requirement of attendance would make him entitled to appear in End examination, where achieving CGPA after having appeared would entitle him to further advance in the semester. Both the rules operate in different field. The petitioner has not been permitted to continue the study because he had not achieved the CGPA. It is not disputed that this requirement is also essential in terms of Rule 8.1 of the rules referred above. The case of the petitioner in equity was also considered and the University was asked to see, if the petitioner could be permitted to re-commence his course for which the concurrence is not forthcoming. It will not be appropriate to issue any such direction purely in equity, once the petitioner is not having any legal rights. I am thus not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. However, the University can not be permitted to retain the fee paid and is, therefore, directed to release the same. The counsel for the University says that fee would be refunded. which is even Civil Writ Petition No. 15265 of 2009 5 conceded by the counsel for the University. Let the needful be done within 2 weeks. July 19, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE