IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP 16521/2008 Date of Decision: 14.7.2009. Sachin Nanda and others ..........Petitioners. Versus The Punjab Technical University and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Manu K.Bhandari,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amrit Paul,Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mr.Ashish Rawal,Advocate for Mr.Anupam Gupta,Advocate for respondent no.4. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? JASWANT SINGH,J. This order, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, will dispose of CWP No.16521/2008 and 20888/2008 (Gurpreet Singh v. PTU and another) as common questions of facts and law are involved in both these petitions. However, facts are being taken from CWP No.16521 of 2008. Petitioners are ex-students of different Engineering Colleges which are affiliated with the Punjab Technical University,Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-University). In the year 2001 they took admissions in four-year Engineering Courses in these Engineering Colleges. CWP 16521/2008 2 The courses, according to the averments made in the petition, stood completed in the year 2005. However, the petitioners could not clear papers in some subjects and have got reappear in one or more subjects of the courses undertaken by them. The Board of Governors of the respondent-University took a decision to grant an additional opportunity to old students to clear their backlog of reappear papers (subjects) and accordingly a notification dated 22.2.2006 was issued amending the regulations. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they have prayed for quashing impugned notification dated 22.2.2006 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent-University insofar as it lays down the last date for passing of re-appear exams upto 31.12.2007, thereby limiting their number of chances as compared to old students of the previous batches. In order to consider the claim of the petitioners it would be relevant to refer to relevant extracts of impugned notification dated 22.2.2006(P/1), which is as under:- “ The Board of Governors, PTU, has approved the following (a) The maximum duration for clearing all subjects of a particular course shall be twice the duration of the respective regular course. This would apply to all the regular courses. All regulations issued so far are hereby modified to make the above applicable. Whereas this CWP 16521/2008 3 would apply directly to the current students, the pass out students who have not been able to clear their course within the maximum duration stipulated under the unamended regulations may now take additional chance(s)/examination (s) to clear their backlog. Such examination(s) would, however, be conducted only when the University examination(s) in the respective subject(s) is held in the normal course between January 01,2006 to December 31,2007. No additional chance to clear the backlog will be given to any pass out student(s) after December 31,2007.” It is the grievance of the petitioners that by laying down the cut off date as 31.12.2007 they have been discriminated as compared to students who took admission in 1998 or 1999. In other words, those students who took admissions in 1998 or 1999, by virtue of impugned notification, can clear the backlog of their reappear subjects upto 31.12.2007, i.e. twice the duration of their respective regular course in a span of 8-9 years whereas according to the notification the petitioners have been given only 6½ effective years instead of 8 years to clear the backlog of their reappear subjects. In this backdrop the impugned notification insofar as it lays down the last date for passing of exams upto 31.12.2007, has been sought to be quashed being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Upon notice respondents put in appearance. At the request of CWP 16521/2008 4 learned counsel for the petitioners, names of respondents 2 and 3 (Colleges) were permitted to be deleted from the memo of parties. Respondent-University, being the contesting respondent has filed a detailed written statement. In nut-shell it is the case of the respondent- University that by way of impugned notification, a special privilege and concession was given to those old students, who could not complete their degree within stipulated time frame, to clear their backlog of reappear papers between 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2007 and as such they have no right of any kind to the grant of even that special privilege or to further demand additional chances beyond 31.12.2007. It is further the case of respondent-University that the most of the petitioners took benefit of a part of the impugned notification by availing additional chances by appearing in the backlog of their reappear examinations, admissible upto 31.12.2007 and the rest did not avail the opportunity. Having failed even after availing additional chances or not availing at all, now they cannot turn around to challenge a part of the same statutory amendment. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties and are of the considered opinion that the writ petition is bereft of any merit. It is not disputed that in the year 2001, petitioners took admission CWP 16521/2008 5 in four-year courses in different branches of Engineering. The said courses started in the month of August 2001 and concluded in August 2005. Thus, the petitioners were required to successfully complete their courses by August 2005 subject to grant of further chances to reappear as per the regulations then in force. Unfortunately they could not clear all the subjects. Resultantly they had backlog of reappear in different subjects. The respondent-University by way of impugned notification dated 22.2.2006 (Annexure P/1) in pursuance to the decision of Board of Governors of the University, the competent authority, as a special privilege granted additional chances to all the old students to clear their backlog of reappears by 31.12.2007. Since it was mentioned in the notification that “.....The maximum duration for clearing all subjects of a particular course shall be twice the duration of the respective regular course for the current students.....”, the petitioners, as a matter of right, literally want to stretch their four-year course to eight-year course so as to clear the backlog of their reappear in various subjects by August 2009. It is for this reason that they seek quashing of the impugned notification so far as it relates to last date of passing of exams upto 31.12.2007, and thus on a parity of similar treatment as given to current students and old students of the previous batches, seek to extend this date upto 2009 so that they could also avail eight years to clear their backlog of reappears in examinations. This Court, in our considered opinion, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is highly CWP 16521/2008 6 constrained to grant the relief prayed for in the instant petitions. Conduct of examinations or grant of additional chances to clear the backlog of reappear are in the realm of policy matters lying within the exclusive domain of the respondent-University. Even though petitioners, by fixing last date for clearing backlog arrears as 31.12.2007, may have been put at a less advantageous position vis-a-vis students of older batches, yet this Court cannot direct the respondent-University to grant still more additional chances to the petitioners holding that such a disparity is arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Board of Governors of respondent- University has taken a conscious decision to grant as a special privilege/concession to all the old students additional chances by adopting a deadline i.e. 31.12.2007 as a matter of academic policy to bring about academic certainty. Merely because in uniformly implementing that policy, some students are put in a less advantageous position, would not be sufficient to hold that the policy is discriminatory and arbitrary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others, 2000(1) RSJ 586 while considering the case of issue of notification by the State Education Board permitting scrapping of the entire examination in a centre reported of mass copying, as well as of a notification cancelling the entire examination of Higher Secondary Part II for regular candidates held in May, June 1993 in the centres stated therein on account of mass copying and violation of sanctity of CWP 16521/2008 7 the examinations, on a plea raised by some of the meritorious students, who were affected by such cancellation held in para 21 of the judgement that a notification cannot be struck down as discriminatory merely because in implementing the same injustice is likely to be suffered by some students. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned notification dated 26.2.2006 (Annexure P/2). Hence both the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. (Jaswant Singh) (M.M.Kumar) Judge Judge 14.7.2009. joshi