C.W.P.No.20019 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.20019 of 2008 Date of decision :18.3.2011 Anuradha Kapil ....Petitioner Versus The Institute of Engineers and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Chhibbar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anand Chhibbar, Advocate for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent – Institute to issue her a certificate of A.M.I.E.(Civil) by taking into consideration 43 marks which she obtained in the subject of 'Structural Design' held in 'Winter 2003' and 50 marks obtained in 'Summer 2004' in the subject of 'Theory of Structures' and to treat her as having passed all the subjects. The petitioner got registered herself for the course of A.M.I.E.(Civil), conducted by the Institution of Engineers, in the year 1993. The examination for A.M.I.E. consists of two portions – C.W.P.No.20019 of 2008 -2- Section A and Section B. The examinations are held twice a year – one in 'Winter Session' and the other in 'Summer Session'. The petitioner successfully completed Section A in 1994 in the Winter Session and was admitted to Section B. She continued to appear for her examinations in the respective sessions of Summer and Winter upto Winter 2002 and cleared 7 subjects out of 10 in total. Annexure P-4 is the Detailed Marks Sheet indicating six subjects which she cleared and also cleared one more paper, namely 'Surveying' by securing 50 marks and thus she cleared 8 subjects out of 10. The petitioner did not manage to clear two of the subjects i.e. 'Theory of Structures' and 'Structural Design' in Winter 2003 and obtained 19 and 43 marks, respectively. She then took the examination in Summer 2004, the result of which was declared on 24.9.2004, wherein she received 50 marks in 'Theory of Structures' and 25 marks in 'Structural Design'. The case of the petitioner is that since she had obtained 43 marks in 'Structural Design' in the examination held in Winter 2003, the result of which was declared on 29.3.2004, the same should have been carried forward and considered to declare her pass as she had obtained more than 35 per cent marks in the said subject and more so when in the examination held in Summer 2004 she obtained 50 marks in 'Theory of Structures'. But in the 'Structural Design', the examination of which was taken again, she secured 34 marks in Winter 2002. It is her case that since she has completed all the 10 subjects, the marks which she has obtained in the last examinations in the subject of 'Structural Design' should have been ignored and she should have been declared pass by carrying forward C.W.P.No.20019 of 2008 -3- the marks which she obtained in the examination held in Winter 2003. The claim of the petitioner is primarily based on Rule 2.4.4 of the Institution Examinations, Volume 1, which is extracted as under :- “2.4.4 The pass marks in each subject is 35, and for final pass a candidate is required to secure 50% in the aggregate. But, a candidate securing 50 or more marks in a subject shall be exempted from appearing in that subject again and the marks so obtained by him shall be carried forward. He shall be required and allowed to reappear only in those subjects in which he has secured less than 50 marks. However, if a candidate secures 50% or more in aggregate and at the same time secures not less than 35 marks in one or more subjects, he shall be declared “Passed” provided all the subjects in the scheme are entirely covered.” She pleads that in view of Rule 2.4.4 since she had obtained pass marks in each subject being more than 35 and she was required to secure 50% marks in aggregate. She claims that in 7 subjects she has secured more than 50% marks in the examination held in Winter 2003 and obtained more than 35 per cent marks in Structural Design. She took the examination again for two subjects i.e. Theory of Structures and Structural Design and obtained 35 marks in theory and once this was done, then it should be construed that she had obtained less than 50% marks in only one subject i.e. Structural Design in Winter 2003 and if C.W.P.No.20019 of 2008 -4- these marks are carried forward and the marks obtained by her in this very subject in the examination held in Summer 2004 should be ignored and she should be declared pass in view of the aforesaid rule, in particular the one in which it is said : “However, if a candidate secures 50% or more in aggregate and at the same time secures not less than 35 marks in one or more subjects, he shall be declared “Passed” provided all the subjects in the scheme are entirely covered.” The respondents have filed the reply and stated that the petitioner has misled this Court as she has not produced the entire rules, which govern the case of the petitioner. While clarifying the position it is stated that prior to 1993 the candidates were allowed to appear in both, Sections A and B examination for an unlimited period as there was no cap on the period in which a candidate could qualify. But subsequently, it was thought desirable that appropriate steps be taken to put a cap on the number of years required to qualify for the examination as it would enhance professional excellence. It was thus decided that the candidate would be required to clear all the examinations in 6 years each i.e. to clear Sections A and B, respectively. As per the information given out in the set of rules these conditions were incorporated in September 1993. It was thus pleaded that the petitioner was required to clear all the papers in a period of six years and extension of a period of two years was also stipulated upon an application which was to be made by a candidate so desirous of obtaining such an extension. The petitioner had joined the course for Section B in Summer 1995 registered in June 1995 and was C.W.P.No.20019 of 2008 -5- required to clear upto Winter 2001. As a measure of policy two years extension was given to all the candidates who were enrolled for Section B and were not qualified. The petitioner was thus required to clear all the papers upto Winter 2003. In the examination taken by the petitioner in Winter 2002, result of which was declared on 27.3.2004, she had cleared 7 subjects, which is not denied. The time limit to clear all the 10 subjects thus stood exhausted in Winter 2003, the result of which was declared in March 2004. The petitioner then applied for fresh registration which is evident from Annexures C and D. She also furnished an undertaking which was incorporated in the form itself to the following effect :- “I also hereby agree that exemption in subject(s) secured during the stipulated period as well as in extended period in Section A/Section B Examination shall be forfeited once my application for Examination Re-registration is accepted by the Institution. I shall not claim in future to carry forward such exemptions.” It is thus contended that the petitioner has concealed the material facts and has not disclosed that the exemption that she took in Summer 2004 was pursuant to the fresh registration and not a part of the previous ongoing process of clearing the 10 subjects of Section B which she had started and which period expired in Winter 2003 after she had exhausted the period of six years and another extended period of 2 years and since the petitioner had given an undertaking that all the exemptions acquired by her in the previous examinations would stand forfeited in view of the fresh registration, there was no C.W.P.No.20019 of 2008 -6- question of carrying forward any of the marks which she obtained in the previous attempt. Her initial period of six years expired in Winter 2001 and in the given two years extension the entire subjects were to be cleared upto Winter 2003. On due consideration of the entire matter, I am of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner is misplaced. The petitioner has not filed any counter affidavit to the reply filed by the respondents wherein they have categorically referred to Annexures C and D which is the application made by the petitioner for re- registration in the course. She has not denied that her period to clear all the 10 subjects for Section-B expired in December 2003 after the extended period of two years which commenced upon extension of the initial period also expired. The Institution Examinations, which contains the rules and the syllabi issued by the Institution of Engineers (India), supports the case as set up by the respondents. Rules 2.4.2 and 2.4.4 are extracted here below :- “2.4.2 Candidates willing to appear at Section B Examination shall be required to select any any one branch of engineering, as mentioned in Rule 1.2. Candidates shall be required to appear in 10 (ten) subjects – seven compulsory and three optional. The full marks for examination in each subject is 100. The duration of examination in each subject is 3 hours unless specifically mentioned otherwise in the list of subjects. C.W.P.No.20019 of 2008 -7- Detailed syllabi for the subjects are given in Volume II. 2.4.3 ...... 2.4.4 The pass marks in each subject is 35, and for final pass a candidate is required to secure 50% in the aggregate. But, a candidate securing 50 or more marks in a subject shall be exempted from appearing in that subject again and the marks so obtained by him shall be carried forward. He shall be required and allowed to reappear only in those subjects in which he has secured less than 50 marks. However, if a candidate secures 50% or more in aggregate and at the same time secures not less than 35 marks in one or more subjects, he shall be declared “Passed” provided all the subjects in the scheme are entirely covered. A candidate who is not required to appear in all the ten subjects (Ref.2.4.2) of Section B Examination, has to obtain a minimum of 50 marks in each subject for a final pass.” Likewise, Rule 8.6.1, 8.6.2 and 8.6.3 are also reproduced as under :- “8.6.1 A candidate shall be required to pass the examination within a specific period as mentioned hereunder :- Section A 6 years C.W.P.No.20019 of 2008 -8- Section B 6 years This is also applicable to Associates/Corporate members opting to appear Section B Examination in additional branch from the date of their first appearance. No change of branch shall be permitted during the period. Associates/Corporate members already opted to appear Section B Examination in additional branch would be given six-year time period with effect from Winter 2001 Examination. During this period, in case the candidate desires to change the new branch, six-year period shall be counted from the date of his first appearance in the old branch. 8.6.2 After expiry of the term, an unsuccessful candidate fulfilling the conditions approved by the Council and desires to continue examination with previous exemption, if any, shall be required to apply for Extension of Examination Registration in the prescribed proforma for two years. The application should be submitted at least six month prior to expiry of the term along with the original Identity Card and prescribed fee. Each application shall be considered on an individual merit and in no case further extension shall be permitted. However, a candidate shall get usual six years term for Section B provided he C.W.P.No.20019 of 2008 -9- clears Section A completely within the extended period. Revised Identity Card shall be issued to all such candidates. 8.6.3 Examination Re-registration After expiry of the two-year term for extension of examination registration -- a) A candidate, who has already passed Section A examination but failed to pass Section B examination even in the extended period, shall be permitted to appear afresh in Section B retaining his Section A status with exemption of registration with the project guided. In such cases, no exemption in any subject of Section B shall be permitted to carry forward, and he would be required to pass Section B examination afresh within six year period. However, the candidate should apply for examination re- registration on a standard proforma with the prescribed fee. New Identity Cards shall be issued to all such candidates. b) A candidate, who failed to pass Section A examination in the extended period, shall be permitted to appear afresh in Section A examination. In such cases, no exemption in any subject of Section A shall be permitted C.W.P.No.20019 of 2008 -10- to carry forward, and he would be required to pass Section A examination afresh within six-year period. However, a candidate should apply for examination re-registration on a standard proforma with the prescribed fee. New Identity Cards shall be issued to all such candidates. c) Candidates, who will desire for change of engineering branch for Section B Examination, other than the engineering branch they appeared during six-year period as well as in the extended period of two years, shall be required to register afresh for the project work, as per laid down rules, prior to appear in the Section B Examination. In such cases, period of project work shall be included in the six- year period of Examination Re-registration. It is evident from the above that a candidate is required to pass the examination within a specific period as mentioned in rule 8.6.1 and which stipulates a period of 6 years for Sections A and B each. Rule 8.6.2 visualises an extension of two years which is to be applied for by a candidate, but no further extension can be given. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that this extension of two years was granted to all the incumbents in the year 2001without there being any application. There is no denial by the C.W.P.No.20019 of 2008 -11- petitioner to this. Rule 8.6.3 clearly mandates that a candidate who has already passed Section-A examination but has failed to pass Section- B examination, even in the extended period, shall be permitted to appear afresh in Section B retaining Section-A status with exemption of registration with the project guided, but no exemption is to be given in Section-B subjects which can be carried forward as the candidate would be required to pass Section-B examination afresh within six years period. There is thus no hesitation to hold that the petitioner who had failed to qualify the examination within the stipulated period of six years plus two years which expired in Winter 2003, had lost the opportunity to clear the same. She had thus rightly applied for re-registration according to the rules and the examinations which she took for the period September 2004 were a part of her attempt subsequent to the re-registration and thus the previous examinations and her previous attempts prior to the re-registration would not be carried forward for the subsequent examinations upon re-registration. The Court is also of the opinion that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and provisions of the rules from this Court. However, without commenting anything further on this aspect of the matter, the Court is satisfied that the claim of the petitioner does not merit any acceptance. The petition is dismissed. March 18, 2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss