Case: Jawaharlal Nehru University Vs. B.S. Narwal

be heard may be implied. But if the assessment is confined to academic performance, a right to be heard may not be so implied. Of course, if there are allegations of bias or malafides different considerations might prevail, but in the absense of allegations of bias or malafides we do not think that the declaration by an academic body that a students academic performance is unsatisfactory, is liable to be questioned in a Court on the ground that the student was not give n an opportunity of being heard. Large and expanding, perhaps rightly, as the field of natural justice and fail dealing is, necessary and wholesome as hearing an affected partly even by academic bodies is, there are limits to attempt at unnatural extensions of the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Without granting absolutism to academic authorities even in academic matters, we think this case hardly calls for judicial intervention.9. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied on Regine v. Aston University Senate(2) to contend that the examining body of the University was bound to give an opportunity to a student before requiring him to withdraw from the University consequent on his failure in the examination. Admittedly, i n that case, the examiners took into consideration a "wide range of extraneous factors some of which their very nature, for example, personal and family problems might only have been known to the students themselves". Therefore. Donaldso n J., observed that in common fairness the students should have been given an opportunity. Even so, Lord Parker C. J., did not appear to be convinced about the correctness of Donaldson Js view and in Herring v. Templeman &Ors. (supra ), the Court of Appeal expressed the view that Donaldson Js opinion required reconsideration on some suitable future occasion.10. From the earlier narration of facts it would be seen that the respondent had not cleared any of the core courses in the first three semesters. If a candidate for the M.A. degree in a certain discipline fails to clear any single core course in that discipline in the first three semesters, surely, no one can complain that the academic body which has declared the academic performance of the candidate as unsatisfactory has acted arbitrarily in so declaring. The complaint of the respondent, however, was that he was unable to clear the core courses in the first two semesters because the University authorities failed to provide teachers to take classes and this was a factor which the authorities of the University had failed to consider and the authorities must, therefore, be held not to have applied their minds. It appears that in the very first semester the respondent joined the University late and missed several classes. The result was that while the rest of the students had made sufficient progress in Russian language the respondent who had yet to learn the alphabet could not straightaway join the rest of the students attending the core courses. The therefore, had to attend other classes in Russian language where Russian language was taught not as a core subject but as a tool or optional subject. According, to the respondent there was none to teach Russian language to his group between October 6. 1974 and December 6, 1974. Again, in the second semester, though there were Russian classes from 10th February to 30th March, 1975, the re were no arrangements to teach Russian language to his group after 30th March. The High Court appeared to attach great importance to the failure of the University to expressly deny the respondents allegation that there were no teaching facilities between October 6 and December 6. 1974 and again between 10th February and 30th March, 1975. True the University did not in express terms deny the allegations. But the University did mention the following facts in their counter affidavit. In paragraph 5 it was said"He joined the first semester on 22nd of August 1974 although it started from 9th August 1974. So much so he was to be grouped together with students who had offered Russian as a non-core subject and for whom the Russian classes happened to be starting from 1st September. Again, from 8th October 1975 to 20th December 1975, he was not regular in attendance. How could the respondent University afford a special curriculum for the sake of a particular student who does not avail of the regular course of teaching provided by the University to a class of students? It was no fault of the University if the petitioner could not attend the classes when they were conducted, and the petitioner should be blamed for his irregular attendance".11. Again in paragraph 9 it was said:"In reply to paragraph 9, I say that the petitioner did not join the course on 9th August 1974 when the classes for Russian as a core subject commenced. When the Petitioner came on 22nd August 1974 to join the course, the students who had offered Russian as a co re subject and started their classes on 9th August, had made substantial progress. The Petitioner, being a beginner in Russian language, could not be accommodated in any of those groups. He had, therefore, to be grouped tog ether with students who had offered Russian classes happened to be starting from September 1."12. These statements show that the University did run the necessary classes for the core courses but the Respondent was unable to take advantage of them on account of his insufficient knowledge of Russian, for which reason he had to attend classes for optional courses instead of classes for core courses. The University naturally could not run a special programme for an individual student. These statements went unnoticed by the High Court. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the High Court that the authorities of the University were oblivious of the circumstance that the University itself had failed to provide teaching facilities in Russian and therefore, must be considered not to have applied their minds is without factual foundation.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]The case is merely one of assessment of the academic performance of a student which the prescribed authorities of the University are best qualified and the Courts perhaps, are least qualified to judge. Nor can there be any question of any opportunity to be heard being given. One does not hear of a claim to be heard when a candidate fails to qualify at an aptitude or intelligence test, written or oral. When duly qualified and competent academic authorities examine and assess the work of a student over a period of time and declare his work to be unsatisfactory we are unable to see how any question of a right to be heard can arise. The duty of an academic body in such a case is to form an unbiased assessment of the students standard of work based on the entirety of his record and potential(1). That is their function. The very nature of the function of academic adjudication (if the use of the word adjudication is permissible in the context) appears to us to negative any right to an opportunity to be heard. If the assessment by the academic body permitted the consideration of non-academic circumstances also, a right to be heard may be implied. But if the assessment is confined to academic performance, a right to be heard may not be so implied. Of course, if there are allegations of bias or malafides different considerations might prevail, but in the absense of allegations of bias or malafides we do not think that the declaration by an academic body that a students academic performance is unsatisfactory, is liable to be questioned in a Court on the ground that the student was not give n an opportunity of being heard. Large and expanding, perhaps rightly, as the field of natural justice and fail dealing is, necessary and wholesome as hearing an affected partly even by academic bodies is, there are limits to attempt at unnatural extensions of the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Without granting absolutism to academic authorities even in academic matters, we think this case hardly calls for judicialthe earlier narration of facts it would be seen that the respondent had not cleared any of the core courses in the first three semesters. If a candidate for the M.A. degree in a certain discipline fails to clear any single core course in that discipline in the first three semesters, surely, no one can complain that the academic body which has declared the academic performance of the candidate as unsatisfactory has acted arbitrarily in so declaring. The complaint of the respondent, however, was that he was unable to clear the core courses in the first two semesters because the University authorities failed to provide teachers to take classes and this was a factor which the authorities of the University had failed to consider and the authorities must, therefore, be held not to have applied their minds. It appears that in the very first semester the respondent joined the University late and missed several classes. The result was that while the rest of the students had made sufficient progress in Russian language the respondent who had yet to learn the alphabet could not straightaway join the rest of the students attending the core courses. The therefore, had to attend other classes in Russian language where Russian language was taught not as a core subject but as a tool or optionalHigh Court appeared to attach great importance to the failure of the University to expressly deny the respondents allegation that there were no teaching facilities between October 6 and December 6. 1974 and again between 10th February and 30th March, 1975. True the University did not in express terms deny the allegations. But the University did mention the following facts in their counter affidavit.statements show that the University did run the necessary classes for the core courses but the Respondent was unable to take advantage of them on account of his insufficient knowledge of Russian, for which reason he had to attend classes for optional courses instead of classes for core courses. The University naturally could not run a special programme for an individual student. These statements went unnoticed by the High Court. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the High Court that the authorities of the University were oblivious of the circumstance that the University itself had failed to provide teaching facilities in Russian and therefore, must be considered not to have applied their minds is without factual foundation.