84 1 311 CWP No8583 of2009 1 In theHighCourt ofPunjabandHaryanaat Chandigarh Dateofdecision 0804 010 1 CHTPNo5830f2009 SamritiShannaandothers Petitioners Vs m GuruNanak Dev University and another C 0 2 CWP9218 of2009 3 I JugrajSingh Petitioner C9 VS I GuruNanak Dev andothers Z 3CWP No11867 of2009 0 C I NaveenSingh etitioner Od Vs GuruNanak Dev r0 c andanother 3 Z 4 CWP No 9277 of2009 Cle Singh Petitioner VS GuruNanak Dev UniversityAmritsar andanother 5CWPN0 13363of2009 0 RimpiKumari ePetitioner VS GuruNanak Dev andanother 6CWP N09339 of2009 SahasChopra andanother Petitioners VS JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 W CWP No8583 of2009 2 Guru Nanak Dev andanother 7CWPNo351of2009 RajivKumar and others ePetitioners VS Guru Nanak Dev and another m 8CWP No9487 of2009 0 Singhand others Petitioners C0 VS Guru Nanak Dev C5 and another I 9 CWP No340 of2009 Cr Z SinghAulakh and others etitioners 2 VS lr Guru Nanak Dev I andanother 08 10CWP No 10490 of2009 OQ SinghVirdi and others Petitioners 3 2 VS Guru Nanak Dev Llm andanother 11 CWP No770 of2009 Singhand others Petitioners 1 VS GuruNanak Dev andanother 12 CWP 9492 of2009 Ashish Luna and others Petitioners vs GuruNanak Dev and another JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 Ia 0 CWP No8583 of2009 3 13 CWP No153 of2009 NvdeepKaur andothers Petitioners VS Guru Nanak Dev and another 14CWP No779 of2009 Kumar andanother Petitioners tm VS Guru Nanak Dev 0 andanother C40 I 15 CWP No8514 of2009 C5 I Sandeep Dhir 10etitioner Vs Z Guru Nanak Dev UniversityAmritsar andanother Q 4t 16 CWPNo10038 of2009 Z 08 Jatin Seth Petitioner VS CQ GuruNanak Dev andanother 2 17 CWP No 9888 of2009 CL Rahul Sharmaand others Petitioners VS GuruNanak Dev and others Ce 18 CWPNo8644 of2009 SiddharthAcharyaandothers Petitioners VS GuruNanak Dev and another 19CWPNo8411of2009 AmritpalSinghand others Petitioners JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 4 CWP No8583 of2009 4v Versus Guru Nanak Dev UniversityAmritsar andanother CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Presentl MrVeneet Sharma MrAS Manaise Mr Naresh i Prabhakar Mr RS Manhas MrSK Rattan MrManuj C1 NagrathAdvocates for the 0 MrDS Patwalia Advocatefor the 0 I PERMOD KOHLI J C I All these petitionsare beingdisposedof by this Z common order as the facts and of law 111 all these C1 petltlons are identical C I All the in thesepetitions are the studentsof O8 r course like Bachelor of Technology 4 wm Science and Bachelor of Architecture Degree 2 ll in the Faculties of AppliedSciences and and PhysicalPlanningand Architecture They were admittedto the course ln theyear 2005 At therelevanttime they C were by the Ordinancesframed by the Universityfor from one semester to anothersemester The eligibility conditions were 111 para 8 of the of Ordinances for Under Graduate BTechJB Arch Degree in the Faculties of Applied c and PhysicalPlanningand Architectur Ordinance JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 88 C m CWP No 8583 of2009 5 dated 1511 2 000 lIl operationat the time of the admission 1S hereunderl 8 a9 A candidate shall be promoted to the next highersemester providedhe securesat least 40Io C marks in aggregateof all the courses taken 0 together for that semester even if he fails 111one or 0 more coursels I 0 b9 Reappearexaminations for an odd semester I shall be conducted along with the next odd Z semesterand an even semester alongwith the next even semester O C 9 An extra chance shall be givento a reappear Cl3 candidate of seventh semester 6BTech9 9 m Z Semester0B Arch9along with the C1 end semester exaininationprovidedthe candidate has passedall the courses upto semester C d9 A end semester examlnatlOll shall be conducted only for eighth BTechol tenth B Arch9semester providedthe candidate has passeda11the courses upto seventhlninth semester JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 07 CWPNo583 of2009 6 1 e9Award of grace marks for these examinations shall be as per the University Ordinances 91 Under Clause ofthe Ordinance a candidatewas entitledto be to the next higher semester if he secures W at least 40Io marks lIl of all courses taken together for tr that semester ifhe fails ln one or more courses UnderClause b9 0 0 for an odd semester shall be conductedalong reappear I C5 withthe next odd semester and even semesteralongwith the next UnderClause c 9 an extra chance is to a ct even semester Z of 7 semester 6BTech99 semester reappear m 0 Arch9alongwith 8 and 10 semester examination a I candidatehas all courses upto6 and eighthsemesters 08 cQ under Clause 6c a examination is to be Sm2 Z for 8 BTech9and tenth6BArch9semesters C all the courses upto seventhJninth the candidate has semesterThere is alsoa provisionfor award of grace marks as theUniversityOrdinances The Universityamended the per C Ordinances The University has introducedthe cany Oll 1 n t system111theyear 1999for various underthe 5 4 Calendar 1999Vol III for variouscourses exceptlaw 5 and Tecbnologyfaculties and School of 77Sl o 1 1 1 1 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 7 CWP No583 of2009 7 Sciences In respectto the course having8 semester duration followingconditionshave been laid down 3 Courses havingeightsemester duration a9There shall be no condition for promoting a studentfrom first semester to second semester b9However a student shall be promoted to third m C semester only if he has passedatleast 50Io 0 of the flrst two semesters but there 0 I will be no condition for promoting a studentfrom C5 I thirdsemester to fourth semester Z C However a student shall be promoted to fifth m semester only if he has passedatleast 50Io 1 ofthe flrst four semester Z 08 d9There will be no condition for promoting a OO studentfrom fiflh to sixth semester wao e9 However a student shall be promotedto 2 le seventh semester onlyif he has passedall the ofthe flrst two semesters 0 The student shall be promoted to eighth semester only if he has passedalI the 4 of the Orst three semesters ARer a periodof eighthsemestersthe student shall be givena periodof two consecutive years more to passfailingwhich he shall have to start the course afreshfrom the flrst semester However such a JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 91 7 CWP No8583 of2009 8 studentwill not be required to quali61 the entrance test again 25 The aforesaidOrdinances6canyon was rther amendedbythe Syndicate in its meeting held OIl 1322006 lll the following manner i eeeeeeeeeeeeee Present Heading ProposedHeading Lr Carryon Systemfor various 6iii9Carry on Systemfor varlOUS 0 1semester examinations except law semester examinatlons 6exceptLaw 0 1and Engineeringand Technology Faculties and School of Social Faculties and School of Social Sciences C5 1Sciences9 L I Vide the amendment the cany on systemfor various 4 Z semester examlnations was madeapplicableto the n and Faculties as well exceptLaw and School of Social r Sciences However the amendment was appliedfrom Session 06 13 20072008 The University8uther introducedthe amendment ln WA3 the carry of B Tech M Tech MCA and MBA 5 on Z Qm years course vide its decision dated 1 82008 wherebythe cany on system was appliedin all the exceptLaw and Schoolof Social Sciencesfor which there are separateOrdinances Vide the aforesaid decision the carry on system was made 4 to the ComputerScience c and Electronic by way of further clariflcation of the amendment introducedvide Item No3 lIl themeetingof the held on 0512006 The are ofthe decision dated 012008 the amendedOrdinances Govemingthe cany JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 92 44d CWP No8583 of2009 e on systemhas been appliedto all the COUrsesreferred to herenabove As a consequence of the of carry on systema student can be from flrst semester to second semester without any condition However such a studentcan be to third semester if he has passedat least 50 per cent 9 of the First two semesters For promotion to 4 0 semester no condition 1S Againfor to 5 0 semestera studentmust pass at least 50 per cent of C I the first four semesters Againfor from 5 to 6 Z semester 1Swithoutany condition For to 7 semester a m Q further embargo1S created that the student must pass all C I ofthe fIrst two semesters Similarlyfor 06 00 to 8 semesters a studentmust quali61all the ofthe Ke2 flrst three thereby a student will not be 2 eligible to seek admission in 7 semester ifhe hasany reappear or Clm of flrst two semesters Same eligibilitycondition will applyfor promotionto 8 semester and if the student has a C reappear or backlog offlrst three semesters he is ineligible to seek admissionin 8 semester Thegrievance of the is that the amendment introduced or the clarification issuedvide order datedOl082008 1Sillegaland ln cases of the With a vlew to their contention reliance is placedon the Ordinance JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 93 4a1 CWP No583 of2009 10 dated 14112000 P which was in force at the time of admission which onlyrequired 40 per cent marks of all the papers ln a semester of the fact whether a studentfails in one or more papers of that semesters It ilrther contended that cany OI1 which was introduced 111 the 1 r Calendar 1999 6Vol IIIlas no to the 0 and Technology Faculties Law and School of Social 0 Sciences as 1S evidentfrom Annexure I3 Even the amendment C5 I introducedpursuantto the decision of the Syndicate vide Item Z No23 lll the meetinghe1don 51 22006 carry on systemfor the of and TechnologyFaculties has been r r I from Session20072008 It is submiuedthat c6 r0 Slnce the were admitted 111 the year 2005 this r w2 amendment1S againnot applicable to the havingbeen 2 made operative from Session 20072008 as perthe Cl contained in the amendmentOrdinances itself It 1S furthercontendedthat vide orderdated01 082008 C herein the amendment has been applied which has affected the career of the petitioners Accordingto the learnedcounsel for the had the known that theywould be requiredto clear all the of first 213semesters theywould have concentratedon those papers on priority Now afler two years the petitioners JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 94 1 CWPN08583 of2009 11 cannot be punishedfor not havingcleared the paperstwo years back It 1S the case of the that the operation of the rules is when it takes away any of the rightof the hither to available lll existingstatutellaw Accordingto the the only A L for promotion to the seven and eighthsemesters was 0 that a candidateshould secure 40 per cent marksin aggregatein a C I semester of the fact whether a candidate has failed lrl C13 I one or more ofthe papers ofthat semester Z In the replyflled by the the Universityhas relied upon the order dated 01 082008 whereby L 4 Z carry on systemhasbeen appliedto all the courses 6j lll the UniversityexceptLaw and School of Social Sciences CJO e em Thesetwo courses beinggovemedby separateOrdinances It 1S 2 reiterated that any having lll CJ the first two semesters is ineligiblefor seekingadmission to 7th semester and a candidatehavingreappear in first three semesters 1S to seek admissionin 8semester Itis statedthat asa matter of fact order dated01082008 is not an amendmento the regulationbut onlybyway of clarification as previous Ordinances of 2000 were in this regardand thus necessitateda clarification It is mentioned lIl the replyflled by the University that some of the who had ln reappear JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 95 41 CWP No8583 of2009 12 examinations on flrst two semesters were granted admission to 7 semester subject to clearanceofthe back4ogofthe flrst two semesters on their fllingof the affldavit that in the event of the failure of the candidateto clear the reappear of fust two the admission to 7 semester could be cancelled a r Similar affldavits were flled by the who 0 secured admission lIl 8 semester while in flrst three C0 papers It is submittedthat all the admissionsto 7 and 0 I 8 semesters in respectto thecandidateswho had of first 4r Z 213semesters were provisional in nature andcould be cancelledon theirfailure to clear the 1 When these petitions were flled interim orders were 08 passedby this Court 111CWP No8583 of 2009 on 29052009 Cf1 r 7 entryin 8 semester Similar orderswere passed in other 2 writ petitions the to seekadmissionin 7 and tlA 8 semesters and also to appear in the examinationsfrom time to tune MrD Patwalialeamed counsel for the C has however arguedthat neither the Ordinances canyingon systemare in nature nor the order dated Ol082008 can be construedto have retrospectlve His further contentionis that the Universityis entitled the rules even duringthe continuanceofthe Course by a to JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 96 1P a A CWP No583 of2009 m13 studentas theUniversitydoesnot hold a promise to a studentnot to changethe duration or the manner or method of from one semesters to anotherexceptchangingthe syllabus or a courseof studyfor which a studentmay be entitledto notice The have placedreliance upon a Single 1W ofthis Court reported Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs 0 The State of Puniab and others 1991 639 Recent Services 0 I 407 In this case the afflliatingUniversity C5 I the condition of passingthe Z examinations tn a particularchance The students who are the course at the time of introductionof the byews r r assailed the action of the University the lssue a 06 learnedSingleBench ofthis Court held as followsl ri3 e It has been laid down in the above referred two e 2 authorities that the which are Cle applicable at the time a student takes admissionin the consolidated course would keepon applying of any amendment till the student so admitted completes the course In view of this the were not justifiedin applyingthe byeawswhich were on 16 August 1986to the studentswho had got admission in the BAM course in the flrst year prior to that date 55 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 97 4K CWP No8583 of2009 14 Reliance is also placedon another Division Bench judgmentofthis Court in the case of Munish Kumar Talwar Vs The Vice Chancellor Baba Farid Universityof Health Sciences and others 2007 629S1R 330 In this case also the rules for BAMS course were amended The amended rules prohibited admission to flnal examinatlOn if there is reappear ln 0 the second examlnatlOlle The petitioner therein had C0 I remappearln second thoughhe was granted admission C5 I to third semester but not to appear in the examinations C Z This Court the questionheld as underl m C 7 The short question that requires determination I IIl this case is whether the appeIlantis to be ct5 govemed by the amended or uneamended I 4 Ordinance The appellant had been permitted to e Z in the 3 Professionalexamination held 111 tl AprilMay2005 Ifthe originaldurationofthe 3 Professionalhad not been amended the appellant hadcleared the reappearsof the 2 Professional and on that account there was no en before him to appear in the final examination which was then to be held in Novembere December 2005 As per the appellanthe is sufferingon account of the wrong application of theamendedOrdinance in his case JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 98 21 CWP No8583 of2009 15 9 Since the appeIlant is required to be treatedas belongingto batch of year 2000 as already noticed theprovisionofpara11 above would also come to his rescue When the appellant joinedthe course he was entitledto take position that he would be eligible to clear lst and 1 C 2 Professional by NovemberDecember 2005 0 He reallycould not have any say in fixingthe 0 I durationof the 3 by amendmentin C the Ordinance after he had joinedthe course To I remedy such a situationonlyperhaps theprovision Z ofpara11 ofOrdinance specificallyprovidedthat m tr candidates admittedpriorto 2001 will appear 111 I final after two years of study It can 08 00 be noticed that the appellant has studied with the r batch in 1 and Professional examinations Z Thus a different duration of the course if being fl applied to similarlysituated candidates We do not say that it amounts to discrimination but parity needto be maintained between similarlysituated C candidates and that is what is soughtto be achieved byOrdinance above We are thusofthe view that unamendedOrdinance would govem the case ofthe appellant andthe provisions of the amended Ordinance cannot be made applicable to him 15 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 99 J er CUTPN0 8583 of2009 16 To thecontrary Mr DS Patwalia leamed counsel for the has relied upon Puniab Universitv Vs SubashChander and another 3 Supreme Court Cases 603 In this case the had securedadmissionto MBBS course Ul the year 1965 The existing required mlnlmum of 50 per cent marksto pass in eachsubjectIn addition 0 to theabove there was a separate rule for grantof grace marks C I uptoone of the total aggregate marksincludingmarksfor C5 I Practicaland internalassessmentif a candidatefails ln one or more Z In theyear 1970 an amendmentwas madein the rules and the award of grace marks was conflned to total C marks excludingthe marks for intemal assessment Q8 Where a candidatefails m one or more he has rio 4r 2 lIl all where a separate of passing 2 also exists In case of UMSIBDS examination the Q gracemarks of one percentwas conflnedto each subjectand not to of all subjectsThe petitioner who was a studentof lvfBBS was failingin one He claimed grace marks on the basis ofunamended rules but he was awardedgracemarkson the 1 1L 4 44 n11 13 Iaol 711 basis ofthe amendedrules which did not orove beneflcialto him Ill i0 n 41 the same in thePunjabandHaryanaHigh Court A He 1t i Or ill 74 ofthisCourt allowedthe 797f rules prevalent at the 71 7 81nG JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 400 r CWPN08583of2009 17 applyand the amended rules cannot be applied to the detrimentofthe candidates Honble the Supreme Court while the 1SSue held as under 11 We do not agree with the leamed Judgesof the Full Bench ofthe HighCourt that thereis any elementof 1 retrospectivityin the changebroughtabout by the lr addition of the exception to Rule l ofthe Calendarfor 0 C40 the year 1970 according to the Shorter I C5 Oxford EnglishDictionaryThird Edition in relation to I Statutesetc means Operative with regardto pasttime Z The changebroughtabout by the addition of the exceptionto Rule 2 l does not say that it shall be t operativewith effect from any earlier date It 1S 08 obviously It is not possible to hold that it is Q3 r retrospective in operationmerelybecause though 3 Z introduced in 1970 it was appliedto Subash Chander n 1 who appeared for the final examlnation in 1974 after he hadjoinedthe course earlier in 1965 No promise was made or could be deemed to have been made to him at the time of his admission in 1965 that ea there will be no alteration of the rule or regulationlIl regardto the percentageof marks requiredfor passing anyexamination or award of grace marks and that the rules relatingtheretowhich were in force at the time of his admission would continue to be appliedto him until he Onishedhis wholecourse 11 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 401 W CWPNo8583 of2009 18 12 Therefore we are clearlyofthe opinion that there 1S no of the changein the rule made in the year 41 1970 merelybecause it was in 1974 to SubashChanderwho had joined theNBS course in 1965when the rule award of grace marks was different In these circumstances m affirm the viewof DK Mahajanand PC Jain JJ we 0 in the Division Bench judgment in Sewa Ram 0 I V Kurukshetra and disapprove the view taken C5 bythe learnedJudgesof the Full Bench in the decision I under in this case and hold that the University Z right in holdingthat SubashChander l was r tr was not entitledto 16grace marks under the old rule Z but was entitledto only4 gracemarksunder the new rule 06 CO and had therefore not passedthe examinatlOll lIl 4 2 We allow the appealbut without any order Z Howeverthis decision will not afct the as to costs Ll resultof the examinationof Subash Chander in if it had been declaredas per the direction of the learned Judgesofthe Full Bench in the Letters Patent e94 Appea Theaforesaid was followed by anotherBench of the Court lIl the case of Puniab Universitv ChandigarhVs Deviani Chakrabartiand others 3 Supreme Court Cases 612wherein it has been held as followsl JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 402 Ol 9 S CWPNo85830f2009 19 In the presentcase also the new decisions are prima facie in operation and theydid not become merelybecause they appliedto studentswho had already started their educational careers We therefore allow these pealsbut without any order as to 1 l costs and set aside the judgments of the High 0 C Court and dismiss the writ petitionsHowever I this decision will not affect the rightwhich might C5 I have been to the petitioners in the writ Cr Z petitions on the basis ofthe judgments ofthe High m Court which havebeen reversedin theseappeals C A similar issue came to be considered by a Division 06 Bench of this Court lltl the case of Rahul Gupta Vs State of ClO Haryana2000 49ST 1099 wherein SubhashChanders case SW2 Z supra9hasbeenrelied upon andit hasbeenheld as under1 CL 4 We have heard leamed counsel for the parties and are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petitionsThe onlyargumentadvancedbythe counselfor the petitioner is that when his client joinedthe diplomacourse ln the year 1997 the made it clear that the duration of that course was 3 yearsand the could not change the duration till the studentswho joined the course in the academic session 199798 had JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 403 J CWP No8583 of2009 20 11 completed the same He has placedreliance on Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep SinghSahotav StateofPuniab etc 1993641SLR 6731 1993 141SCT 328 Hl FBI and SwaraniitSinghand anotherv StateofPuniab and others 1998 621SLR 14 1997 49SCT 511 P 0 1 C Hl FBI We are unable to agree with the 0 contentiOll of the petitionerFrom the standtaken C by the it 1S clear that the competent C authoritydecided in the year 1995 to revise the I curriculum of Electronics and Communication Z DiplomaCourse to 3112 years consistingof 7 Q semesters The 7 semester includes the inplant I training and the marks awarded to a candidatein 021 QO this traininghave to be included in the diploma 7 awardedto him It is 81rther clear that the Z Director Technical Education Haryanaby his 0a communicationdated 1811995 informed all the Principals of the Institutesin the Stateof Haryana which impartsuch education that the duration of thecourse had been increased to 3112 years and thatthe revised curriculum was to be with effect from the academic session 199596 What happened was that when the prospectus was issuedfor the academic session 199798 there was an inadvertenterror therein and the duration 1 1 a 01 24 1 1 1 jll er JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 404 1 Jl CWP No85830f2009 21 of the course was shown to be of 3 years When this error was noticed the Director Technical Education Haryanasent another communication to all the Principalsof the Institutes imparting educationin Electronics and Communication Coursethat therevisedcurriculum wasto U C be with effect from the academic 0 session 199596 This is not a case where the C I duration of the course was changedmicstream C The duration of the course had alreadybeen I increasedto 3 112years in the year 1995