CWP no. 16427 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP no. 16427 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 12-05-2011 Tarun Gupta ....Petitioner VERSUS Lovely Professional University and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the respondents MAHESH GROVER, J The grievance of the petitioner stems from the order Annexure P-15 vide which the respondents-University has declined him the permission to continue in the MBA part of B.Tech (Hons) (MBA) Computer Science Engineering Integrated Course. The reason adopted by the respondents – University to decline him such a permission is that the petitioner was having only 4.83 CGPA as against the required 5. The explanation of the petitioner for not achieving the requisite CGPA is that on an earlier occasion he was debarred from taking the examination of the 4th Semester because his aggregate attendance was only 19% against the requirement of minimum 65. The case of the petitioner was that he was debarred from attending campus on account of his expulsion which respondents – University found to be incorrect as this period pertained to non-teaching period. As per the regulations of the University, it permits its students to take summer term in which as many CWP no. 16427 of 2010(O&M) 2 classes are held during a week per course which are ordinarily held in a regular term. The petitioner had re-appears to his credit which eventually he cleared after obtaining the benefit of summer term on few occasions. He further holds the grudge against the University that in the year 2010 no summer term was held and on this account, the petitioner was precluded from completing his normal course as also the re-appear that he has earned. He thus states that in case the University had held the summer term he would have been able to improve his course. The University has referred to Rule 3.14.2 according to which summer term is a special privilege to be offered at the discretion of the University and the University is not under any obligation to offer this summer term every year and further still that students shall not have any right to cite the non-availability of this facility as an excuse for poor performance. The petitioner on the other hand relies on Rule 4.7.11 to say that the Vice Chancellor has the power to relax any of the conditions in case of extreme hardship at his discretion and further in view of the earlier order passed by this Court dated 15.5.2009 in CWP no. 7359 of 20010 where the respondents – University granted the permission to the petitioner to attend summer term for the year 2009, learned counsel for the petitioner thus contends that it is entirely due to the fault of the University that the petitioner had been prevented from getting the requisite grades and had the summer term being held for the year 2010, he would certainly have been able to come within the zone of consideration for continuing his MBA course. He has further contended that Vice Chancellor has power to relax CWP no. 16427 of 2010(O&M) 3 any of the conditions and therefore such a condition ought to have been relaxed in favour of the student. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that sufficient indulgence has been shown to the petitioner as according to the rules the CGPA is to be assessed by the end of the 5th Semester whereas in the case of the petitioner as also number of other students, it was extended upto 6th semester but yet the petitioner could not make the grade and beyond this no other indulgence could have been shown to the petitioner and the relaxation has been denied to the petitioner by giving sufficient and sustainable reasons. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the rules and regulations of the University provide for a minimum standard of excellence to be achieved by a student aspiring to do the integrated course of B.Tech (Hons) and MBA. Such criteria of excellence or a minimum standard of performance cannot be considered arbitrary and rather laying down such a condition only ensures that students who are capable get to pursue their course. Such rules and regulations should best be left untouched and the Courts should be extremely wary of interfering with them by lending flexibility to the Rules in the name of compassion and equity for the simple reason that ostensible purpose of such rules is to achieve proficiency in the academic field and relaxation tends to lower the achievement standards. The petitioner is actually a captive of a situation of his own making. He first got shortage of lectures which resulted in back-log of one semester, the examinations of which he was required to clear in the succeeding semesters which he is admitted to have done by taking the CWP no. 16427 of 2010(O&M) 4 summer term offered by the respondent-College for the year 2009. He was permitted by the University to take the summer term but in the year 2010 no such term was held by the University. This itself cannot prejudice the case of the petitioner in view of the impediment of Rule 3.14.2 which confers a discretion upon the University to hold a summer term and which discretion cannot be questioned by the students and neither can any student take up an excuse of poor performance on account of non-availability of this special privilege. Likewise, the petitioner cannot claim relaxation in his favour which the Vice Chancellor was empowered to exercise only in the case of extreme hardship which facts of the case of the petitioner do not demonstrate. The Court cannot also be oblivious to the fact that there may be very many students similarly placed as the petitioner who will also be marginally short of the required grading and bending of the rule in favour of the petitioner is likely to reduce the effervescence of the rule. There is thus no ground to interfere and the writ petition is held to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, as observed in the impugned order by the Vice Chancellor that the courses that the petitioner has completed in the 7th semester would be counted towards the 7th semester requirement of the stand alone B.Tech programme, in order to minimize the hardship of the petitioner, the same be done and the result of the petitioner be declared in accordance with the observations of the Vice Chancellor made in the impugned order. Likewise, this principle would also extend to the result of 8th semester as well. May 12 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge