IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6055 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 27, 2009 Anshu Arora .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS ICFAI Business School, Nagarjuna Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.K. Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 7.4.2009 (Annexure P-6). The petition further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provisionally permit the petitioner to appear in summer term 2009 MBA Examination scheduled to be held from 25.4.2009. Before considering the facts, relevant Regulations are required to be taken into account. CWP No.6055 of 2009 [2] For exact reference, relevant portion from Annexure P-7 reads as under:- “2.15.1 The Minimum Requirement The minimum academic requirements to be fulfilled by the student at the end of every semester are: i) The total number of D and E grades in the semester should not exceed three, of which the number of E grades should not exceed one. ii) The cumulative number of D and E grades secured by a student at the end of every semester should not exceed: Semester Cumulative No. Of D & E Grades Cumulative No. Of E Grades I 3 1 II 6 2 III 9 3 IV 12 4 iii) The student should have secured a CGPA of minimum 5.5. iv) The student should have secured a satisfactory grade in Soft Skills Lab. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 2.15.2 Implications of the regulations xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx At the end of semester-II: a) Failure to meet the minimum requirements will bring the student under the purview of academic counselling committee. In such cases, the student will receive a notice from IBS and will have to undergo counselling sessions with assigned Campus Head at the respective IBS-Campus. b) Students with the following CGPA or grade afflictions will not be permitted to register for semester III.” The impugned order, Annexure P-6, reads as under:- “Sub: Not meeting minimum Academic requirement & Not eligible to progress to semester-III CWP No.6055 of 2009 [3] On receipt of results for the semester-II, you would have noticed your academic performance at the end of 1st Academic year and the shortfall in meeting the minimum academic requirement for progressing to semester-III. The minimum academic requirement to be fulfilled by a student at the end of semester-II for progressing to semester- III is as under.  CGPA of minimum 5.5 or  Cumulative number of D and E not exceeding in 6 courses out of which E grades not exceeding in 2 Courses. The grades and CGPA scored by you at the end of semester- II is as follows:  CGPA: 4.71  Cumulative number of D and E Grades: 10 ; E grades: 0 Since you have failed to meet the minimum academic requirements at the end of semester-II: a) You have to discontinue SIP. b) You will not be permitted to register for semester-III; c) You have to re-register for the required courses either in semester-I on June 01, 2009 or semester-II on October 05, 2009 with the class of 2011 to improve your grades and meet minimum academic requirements to progress to semester-III. d) You will have to do SIP with class of 2011. Amount paid towards 3rd instalment of tuition fee will be adjusted. You would be required to pay a fee of Rs.7500/- per course for the courses re-registered.” Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the grade given in one of the papers as `D’ is wrong. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that although the issue is contested, however, even if as has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, with 9 grade `D’, the CWP No.6055 of 2009 [4] petitioner is not entitled to be promoted to 3rd semester as the maximum permissible cumulative number of `D’ grade is 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has 9 grade D’s. Even the CGPA of the petitioner is lower than the minimum required. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the Regulation which has been reproduced above, no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. The petitioner admittedly accumulated 9 `D’ grades in 1st and 2nd semester. The rules permit only a maximum of 6 `D’ grades. The CGPA of the petitioner is also less than the minimum prescribed 5.5. I have taken note of the fact that the petitioner has been allowed to improve his grades by repeating the papers. The fees deposited by the petitioner for the 3rd semester has been allowed to be adjusted for continuance of studies of the petitioner. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 27, 2009 JUDGE avin