Case: Principal, Patna College, Patna, And Others Vs. Kalyan Srinivas Raman

per cent attendance by reference to the lectures, tutorials and practicals which is prescribed for this latter category of examinations, was not of a different character at all. This requirement had to be satisfied by reference to each one of them, viz., the lectures, tutorials and practicals as the case may be. Instead of repeating sub-cls. (i) and (ii) of Regulation 1 (7), Regulation 5 (1) merely for the sake of convenience, has compressed the said two clauses into one clause; and so, we think the High Court was in error in assuming that under the old regulations with regard to this latter class of examinations, the requirement as to 75 per cent attendance was in any way different from the same requirement in regard to the examinations mentioned in the first part of the said regulation.19. But assuming for the sake of argument that the said requirement was different in regard to the latter category of examinations, it is not easy to see how that can support the conclusion that the present Regulation 4 has assimilated all the examinations to the said latter class of examinations in Regulation 5 (1) by prescribing that 75 per cent attendance need not be in relation to the lectures, tutorials and practicals separately, but should be in relation to all the three taken collectively. In our opinion, having regard to the context, it would be more reasonable to hold that the present regulation prescribed the requirement as to 75 per cent attendance in lectures, tutorials and/or practicals separately in relation to all the examinations.20. Mr. Basudev Prasad has sought to rely on Regulation 9 contained in Chapter VI of the Examination Regulations which deal with B.A. Part I examination of the Three - Year Degree Course in Arts. The said regulation provides that in order to pass the Degree Part I examination, a candidate must obtain not less than 30 per cent of the total marks in each subject and 33 per cent in the aggregate. He argues that the provision of Regulation 9 would support the respondents case that it could not have been the intention of Regulation 4 to require that the regular course of study contemplated by it postulates 75 per cent attendance at lectures, tutorials and/or practicals taken severally and not conjointly. We are unable to see how the provision made by Regulation 9 dealing with the examinations can be material in construing the words used in Regulation 4. Therefore, we do not think Mr. Basudev Prasad is right in contending that Regulation 9 of the Examination Regulations supports the respondents case.21. It appears that before the writ petition was filed by the respondent in the present case, his father Mr. C. K. Raman, I. C S., wrote a long letter on April 11, 1965 to appellant No. 1 inviting him to reconsider his decision in the case of his son and to allow his son to take the University examination in question. In this long communication which is argumentative, the respondents father has adopted to tone which indicates that he attempted to throw his weight about in persuading appellant No. 1 to cancel the impugned notice. Appellant No. 1 promptly replied to the said communication and informed the respondents father that he had referred the case of the respondent to the Vice-Chancellor with a statement of his attendance together with his letter for such action as he thought best under the circumstances. Appellant No. 1 added that the Vice-Chancellor had decided that it was not possible to accept the request made by the respondents father as the University regulations did not permit the same.22. It would be recalled that the impugned notice was published on March 29, 1965, and the letter written by the respondents father on the 11th April was replied by appellant No. 1 on the 12th April. Even so, the respondent did not file his writ petition until Sunday, the 18th April; and as we have already mentioned, the writ petition was presented at the bungalow of the Chief Justice and was heard for admission and interim orders on Sunday night. It is true that if justice demands that the Court should receive a petition even on Sunday, the Court should and ought to accept the petition; but having regard to the fact that the petitioner postponed the filling of the application until Sunday (18th April 1965) night, and other relevant circumstances to which we have already adverted, we think it would have been better if the High Court not passed an interim order on the said night as it has done. It is hardly necessary to emphasise that in dealing with matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the High Court should normally be very slow to pass ex parte interim orders, because matters falling within the jurisdiction of the educational authorities should normally be left to their decision, and the High Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interests of justice.23. Even on the merits, we think we ought to point out that where the question involved is one of interpreting a regulation framed by the Academic Council of a University, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue a writ of certiorari where it is plain that the regulation in question is capable of two constructions, and it would generally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by the said authorities on the relevant regulation appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction which it is pleased to accept. The limits of the High Courts jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari are well recognised and it is, on the whole, desirable that the requirements prescribed by judicial decisions in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in dealing with such matters should be carefully borne in mind.24.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In dealing with regulation 4, it is necessary to bear in mind two broad considerations. The first consideration is that the modern methodology of education in all civilised countries attaches considerable importance to the tutorials and the practical work done by the student in addition to attending lectures. The tendency in modern times is to bring the students into direct personal contact with the tutors so as the enable the tutors to guide and coach the students individually as far as may be possible. For that purpose, small groups of students are formed who are placed under different tutors for different subjects. The importance of practicals has also been well recognised and education does no longer depend merely upon lectures as it used to do at one time in our country. The second consideration which may not be irrelevant is that eversince the present regulations were brought into force in 1961, appellant No. 3 and colleges within its jurisdiction appear to have consistently interpreted Regulation 4 in the manner suggested by appellant No. 3. It is of course true that the two considerations to which we have just referred cannot materially govern the construction of the regulation; that must inevitably depend upon the words used by the regulation itself; but in interpreting the words, these two considerations may not be treated asHigh Court has, no doubt, made an emphatic finding that the relevant words used in this regulation admit of only one construction, and that is that the requirement of 75 per cent attendance has to be judged by reference to lectures, tutorials and/or practicals all taken together. We are unable to agree. It seems to us that in the context, it is more reasonable to hold that the said requirement must be read disjunctively; and so, it must be satisfied by the student by reference to lectures, tutorials and/or practicals as the case may be.14. Inview of this position, it seems somewhat difficult to accept the correctness of the conclusion reached by the High Court that the requirement about 75 per cent attendance must be taken collectively. It is clear that if the said requirement is read collectively, a student may be entitled to claim to have completed the regular course of study without attending any single practical or tutorial, as the case may be, if he has attended all the lectures in a given subject. Take, for instance, the case of English, History, or Political Science in the group for which the respondent was studying. It is not disputed by Mr. Basudev Prasad that in these subjects theoretically, it would be open to the student to attend the maximum number of lectures and not to do any tutorial at all. In other words, the construction placed by the High Court upon Regulation 4 leads to this unreasonable consequence that attendance at the lectures alone may, in a given case, entitled a student to appear for the examination, though he may have done no tutorial at all. In our opinion, this could not have been the intention of the regulation. It is true that the second clause of Regulation 4 requires that the percentage in question shall be calculated on the total number of lectures, tutorials and practicals delivered or provided during the session; but this provision is in the nature of a mere corollary to the main provision prescribed by Regulation 4, and, if the requirement as to 75 per cent attendance has been prescribed separately in relation to lectures, tutorials and/or practicals, the second clause in question must be read accordingly. Thus read, it only means that when the percentage is determined in reference to lectures, tutorials and practicals, what has to be taken into account is the total number of lectures delivered, or tutorials and practicals held during the session in question. We have carefully considered the reasons given by the High Court in support of its conclusion, but we are not satisfied that those reasons justify the construction which the High Court has placed on the material words used in Regulation 4.It appears that before the writ petition was filed by the respondent in the present case, his father Mr. C. K. Raman, I. C S., wrote a long letter on April 11, 1965 to appellant No. 1 inviting him to reconsider his decision in the case of his son and to allow his son to take the University examination in question. In this long communication which is argumentative, the respondents father has adopted to tone which indicates that he attempted to throw his weight about in persuading appellant No. 1 to cancel the impugned notice. Appellant No. 1 promptly replied to the said communication and informed the respondents father that he had referred the case of the respondent to the Vice-Chancellor with a statement of his attendance together with his letter for such action as he thought best under the circumstances. Appellant No. 1 added that the Vice-Chancellor had decided that it was not possible to accept the request made by the respondents father as the University regulations did not permit the same.It would be recalled that the impugned notice was published on March 29, 1965, and the letter written by the respondents father on the 11th April was replied by appellant No. 1 on the 12th April. Even so, the respondent did not file his writ petition until Sunday, the 18th April; and as we have already mentioned, the writ petition was presented at the bungalow of the Chief Justice and was heard for admission and interim orders on Sunday night. It is true that if justice demands that the Court should receive a petition even on Sunday, the Court should and ought to accept the petition; but having regard to the fact that the petitioner postponed the filling of the application until Sunday (18th April 1965) night, and other relevant circumstances to which we have already adverted, we think it would have been better if the High Court not passed an interim order on the said night as it has done. It is hardly necessary to emphasise that in dealing with matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the High Court should normally be very slow to pass ex parte interim orders, because matters falling within the jurisdiction of the educational authorities should normally be left to their decision, and the High Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interests of justice.Even on the merits, we think we ought to point out that where the question involved is one of interpreting a regulation framed by the Academic Council of a University, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue a writ of certiorari where it is plain that the regulation in question is capable of two constructions, and it would generally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by the said authorities on the relevant regulation appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction which it is pleased to accept. The limits of the High Courts jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari are well recognised and it is, on the whole, desirable that the requirements prescribed by judicial decisions in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in dealing with such matters should be carefully borne in mind.