HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 8456 OF 2011 . DATED ---------April, 2011 BETWEEN Venkat RaoAnagani and ors …Petitioner And Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences, A.P., Rep. by its Registrar, Vijayawada, Krishna District, and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 8456 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to apply the old pattern of examination under which the petitioners commenced and continued their BDS course and apply 50% maximum marks for practicals and declare them as passed in the said course. It is the case of the petitioners that they were allotted ‘A’ category seats in the second respondent college for BDS course based on the ranks obtained in the EAMCET-2006. As per the regulation of the said course, the students joining BDS course have to undergo four years of study followed by one year internship. The subjects to be taught in the course were divided for four years and each subject carried 150 marks (100 for theory and 50 marks for practicals). Out of 100 marks of theory, 10 marks have been allocated for internal assessment. Out of 50 marks of practical, 10 marks have been allocated for internal assessment/records. It is mentioned in para 10 of the instructions, that a candidate has to secure 50% of marks in aggregate to be declared as passed; that five grace marks would be added to one subject if the candidate had passed all the subjects except one in the year, to enable such candidates to pass and that a final year student of BDS course can be promoted to the second year if there is only backlog and from second year to third year a candidate has to pass all the subjects of first and second year and from third year to final year, a candidate can have only one backlog subject. After completion of the final BDS course the candidate has to pass all the subjects within 24 months from the date of appearance and if not the candidate has to take the entire examinations again. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have lost six months of their time on account of unsuccessful in one or two subjects and that appeared for fourth year final year examination in February, 2011 instead of June, 2010. In the said examination, they were shown as failed in practical examination of one subject. When they went through the marks memorandum, they came to know that in the practical examination, the maximum marks were increased from 50 to 100. It is their specific case that the same is without their knowledge and that by virtue of change of pattern, they were shown as failed, due to which, they would lose six more months. It is averred that in case of deferred batch like petitioners who took final year examination of BDS course in February, 2011 the internal assessment was done based on the earlier pattern, but when it comes to external assessment, the same was conducted with new pattern. It is their specific case that the deferred batch like petitioners are entitled to appear in the old pattern only in as much as they have completed the first three years course with old pattern. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, the Registrar of the first respondent-University explained as to how the introduction of new pattern of examination in BDS course took place. It reads as under: “ ……..the petitioners jointed BDS course in the second respondent college in the academic year 2006-2007. Classes in respect of the said year were commenced from 1st August, 2006. As per Relation No.4 of the Regulations notified in the Hand Book supplied to the students, duration of the BDS course is four academic years followed by one year paid rotating internship. Further, Regulation No.8 of the s aid Regulation provides for scheme of university examinations. As per the Academic Curriculum/Academic calendar of the university, all the students, who joined BDS course in the academic year 2006-07 shall complete course by 2010. In this connection, it is relevant to submit that the regular final year exams in respect of the above mentioned batch of students were conducted in the month of June, 2010. However, the petitioners had some back logs and on account of the same they had taken the supplementary examinations conducted by the university in the month of January, 2011. Altogether 561 students had appeared for the exsams conducted in the month of January,2011. Out of 561 students, 378 students were originally admitted in the academic years 2006-07 and 183 students in 2005-06 and before and on account of back logs they had to appear for January, 2011 examinations. Till June 2010, the University followed the following pattern of examinations: Theory------70 marks, Viva Voice---20 marks, Theory IA----10 marks, Practicals---45 marks, Practical internals-----05 marks. Further, as per the Regulations, in order to pass in the examinations, the students must obtain 50% marks and viva voce 50% marks in the practicals (University examination + internal assessments) and 50% aggregate. The Academic Senate of the University which is also authority of the University in its meeting held on 8.6.2010 had taken a decision as follows: “ with effect from January 2011 exams pattern ( both theory and practical ) for old regulation batch students, will be as per the new regulations i.e. 100 marks for theory and 100 marks for practicals. Pre-clinical Prosthodontics and Conservative Dentistry will be for 100 marks. All the subjects and internship will be as per the old regulations only. I.A. to be included.” Further, the Executive Council had ratified the above decision taken by the Academic Senate in its meeting held on 11.6.2010. Subsequently, circular instructions were issued to all the Principals of the Dental Colleges affiliated to the University by duly informing about the changing pattern of examinations – system vide letter No. 10340/E3/BDS/2010 dagted 31.7.2010. No objection whatsoever had been received either from the students or from the colleges, after the intimation of the above mentioned decision. After declaration of results in respect of January, 2011 exams, five grace marks were given to the students as per the Regulations of the Dental Council of India/the University. As per the changed pattern of examinations in respect of theory, there is no change. However, in respect of practicals the maximum marks are increased from 50 to 100. It is submitted that the assessment in respect of the practical examinations conducted in January, 2011 was done by the examiners for 100 marks only. But, however, strangely after writing the examination and also after declaration of the results, the petitioners have approached this Honourable Court. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The petitioners are in know of the things from the beginning. Therefore, at this stage, they cannot make out any grievance.” It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners have no vested right in seeking continuation of a regulation which was in vogue at the time of their admission into the course in as much as such continuation would hamper the academic administration of the University affairs. The academic senate and executive senate of the University are empowered to prescribe better standards in imparting of education. It is further stated that the decision of the University was communicated to all the Dental Colleges affiliated to the University, which in turn informed the same to the students by placing the same in the notice boards much before commencement of examinations and hence it cannot be said that the petitioners have no knowledge of the change of pattern of examination earlier thereto. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the decision of the first respondent as regards change of pattern of examination seems to have been communicated to the second respondent, but the same was not made known to the petitioners and their batch mates. He submitted that such change of pattern of examination shall be undertaken by the Dental Council of India and the first respondent- university has no authority to impose such condition. It is further submitted that in as much as the petitioners have started and completed first three years course in old pattern, it is their legitimate expectation to complete the remaining course in the old pattern only even after introduction of new pattern. It is further submitted that the petitioners cannot be jumbled up with the old pattern for the first three years and new pattern for the final year course. He lastly argued that even after changing of pattern of examination and increasing maximum marks to 100, the natural corollary would be to increase the grace marks also to 10 from 5, but the same has not been done. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent argued the matter reiterating the counter averments made in support of the decision of the first respondent-university. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the case file, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Policy decisions of the academic and expert bodies of Universities are normally not susceptible for interference under 226 of the Constitution of India unless they fall under Article 14 or under any other fundamental right such as one under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions held that if it is a question of policy, even by way of change of sole policy, the Courts cannot interfere with such decision. It is to be seen that the policy decision of the academic senate, obviously, is in students’ interest. The respondent-University has intended to maintain the high standards of education and the academic senate decision in its wisdom is to ensure excellence in education. Fundamental right of education is not just the right to enter into any institution, appear in any examination and obtain a degree. It means truly educating oneself to acquire knowledge or skill and not just getting a degree. There is no encroachment upon the fundamental right of education under Article 21 of the Constitution by the policy change and there is no arbitrariness so as to attract the rigor of Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, it is to be seen that there has been no promise by the respondent-University to continue the same pattern of examination which exists at the time of the petitioners entering into the course. Thus, the hue and cry of the petitioners that legitimate expectations are thwarted is not genuine and borne out by academic regulations. In this regard, reference may be made to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Punjab University Vs. Subhash Chander {1984 (3) SCC 603}, wherein it observed as under: “The minimum prescribed for passing in each subject is 50 per cent. Under the old rule as it stood prior to 1970, Subash Chander could, have passed by getting 16 grace marks being 1 per cent of the aggregate of all the few subjects, namely, Medicine, Surgery, Eye and ENT and Midwifery even if he had secured only 94 marks out of 200 in the practical (theory ?) examination in Midwifery which comes to only 42 per cent and he had secured more than 50 per cent in the other subjects / papers. The. Senate thought it fit to remedy this glaring defect so far as M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. examinations are concerned by adding the exception to R. 2.1 in 1970 which the grace marks would be ask 1 per cent of the aggregate marks in the particular subject. We do not think that the Senate did not have the necessary power to effect that change or had acted unreasonably in making the change. We think that the Senate had the necessary power under. S. 31 (2) (A) of the Act to fix, from time to time, the percentage of marks required for passing the examination and to grant or to refuse to grant grace marks or to enhance or reduce the quantum of grace marks. It has not been contended before us that there was any mala fides on the part of the Senate in making this change. It could not be contended that Subash Chander who appeared for the final examination in 1974 did not have sufficient notice of the change brought about in 1970 is the rule relating to award of grace marks or that he was prejudiced by the change. Further, it is to be seen that the respondent- University has changed the examination pattern only by increasing maximum marks from 50 to 100 in the practical examination but there is no change in the pattern of examination for theory papers. Such change of pattern is only in conducting the mode of examination, that too, by mere increasing maximum marks from 50 to 100 and there is no other change in the syllabus or otherwise so as to contend that the college has taught old syllabus and the examinations were conducted in the new syllabus, to which case the petitioners can be said to be aggrieved. In as much as the respondent-University is conducting the examinations in the regular syllabus only after imparting the same to the students during the entire academic year, it is for the petitioners to get ready for any mode of examinations. All the intention of the Academic Senate or Executive Council of the University is to impart high standard education and to improve the skills of the students. The other submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that even after changing of pattern of examination and increasing maximum marks to 100, the natural corollary would be to increase the grace marks also to 10 from 5, but the same has not done. It is to be seen that whether to increase or decrease, grant or refuse, of the grace marks, it is for the Academic Senate to decide the same and it is not for this Court to do so. Further it is to be seen that the petitioners have not questioned the change of pattern of examination soon after writing of the examination. After declaration of the results and knowing failed in the exam, they approached this Court. As such, it is not open for them to agitate the said issue at this juncture of time. Even otherwise also, there is no illegality whatsoever in the decision taken by the Academic Senate and the Executive Council of the University in as much as the University is empowered to prescribe better standards. The petitioners being students have no vested rights seeking continuation of a particular regulation, which was in vogue at the time of their admission into the course. In my opinion, no prejudice is occasioned to the petitioners in as much as the decision of the Academic Senate of the respondent university was communicated to all the Dental Colleges affiliated to the respondent- colleges, which have made it known to all the candidates. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated --------April, 2011. Msnro