Balbir Singh and another vs State Board of Technical Education, Haryana and others

J.M. Tandon, J.—Balbir Singh and Raj Dev Kamal (Petitioners) are regular students of the Government Polytechnic, Hamirpur, (Himanchal Pradesh) which they Joined in 1975. The Government Polytechnic Hamirpur, is affiliated with the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana. According to the petitioners, they were to appear in the final examination of sixth semester on May 25, 1978, but they were suddenly informed on May 20, 1978, by pasting a notice on the notice board by the Principal that they stood detained and will not be allowed to appear in the next Board Examination because they had failed to obtain the minimum pass marks in Sessional Examination (Second term of Session 1977-78). It was mentioned in the notice that the Petitioners had been detained with the approval of the Rationalisation Committee of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, it is also the case of the petitioners that the Rationalisation Committee of the Board acts on the data material supplied by the Principal of the Polytechnic, who in turn is Supplied the marks obtained by the candidates in periodic tests taken by their teachers, according to the instructions issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Himanchal Pradesh, in the circular letter Annexure P. 2. T.N. Mahajan and R.P. Chandel respondents Nos. 3 and/are teachers in the Polytechnic. They were not happily disposed towards the petitioners. The instructions contained in the circular letter Annexure P. 2 Were not properly complied with. The data Supplied to the Rationalisation Committee was defective. The petitioners were required to obtain 50 percent marks for being eligible to appear in the final examination They were detained and were not allowed to appear in the final examination because Balbir Singh petitioner had obtained 46 marks out of 100 and Raj Dev Kamal 38 marks out of 100 The detention of the petitioners is illegal, mala fide and unjust because the instruction contained in the circular letter had not been complied with. The petitioners have accordingly filed the Present writ praying that the order of their detention and not being allowed to appear in the Bord''s examination maybe quashed.

The Principal, Government Polytechnic (respondent No. 2), T.N. Mahajan (respondent No. 3) and R.P. Chandel (respondent No. 4) have filed a joint written Statement through respondent No. 2. The allegation of mala fide against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been denied. It is admitted that the petitioners were to appear in the Sixth semester as regular candidates in May, 1978. The notice date May 20, 1978, was issued detaining thereafter observing all formalities and not suddenly. The petitioner knew their performance regarding, their sessional work which was in mated to them their teachers from time to time. As per procedure prescribed in Annexure P. 2, such teacher awards sessional marks in a subject and hands over the tame duly checked and signed to the Compilation Committee, which in turn submits the compiled sessional awards of ail the subjects of a particular class duly checked and signed to the Principal for approval The whole record is produced before the Rationalisation Committee of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, for final scrutiny and rationalisation. Under rule 4 of of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, Examination Rules, it is necessary for a student to secure at least 50 per cent marks in sessional work for being eligible to appear in the examination. In the instant case, the compilation incharge had brought to the notice of the principal in writing that the petitioners, and another student had had failed in sessional work R.C.C. Design and Drawing subject The Principal sent a letter to the Head of the Civil Engineering Department for rechecking the records of the failed students, including the petitioners. The Head of the Civil Engineering Department, after checking the record, reported that the three students mentioned above were failing. The Principal issued notice to the failed students, including the petitioners, to appear before the Rationalisation Committee which visited the Polytechnic for rationalisation of sessional Marks. The Rationalisation Committee checked the records of the petitioners and also interviewed them on May 12. 1978, at Government Polytechnic, Hamirpur. The Rationalisation Committee conveyed its decision on May 16, 1978, approving the action of the Principal regarding failure of the three students, including the petitioners, in the sessional work It was on receipt of this decision that the petitioners were informed on May 20, 1976, by a notice about their detention, it has further been averred that the instructions Annexure P. 2 are broad guidelines for the teachers and are administrative in nature and no legal sanction is attached thereto. Three tests are required to be held in a semester as per decision of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana. In the instant case, four tests in section A and five tests in section B of the class in the said subject were held during the semester with sufficient time gap. The tests could not be held during the months of February and March, 1978, due to strike by the students. There has been so violation of the instructions Annexure P. 2.

Rule 4 of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, Examination Rules, deals with the eligibility for the examination and its relevant part reads :--

Eligibility for the examination :

The Examination shall be open to any student who :--

(a) * * * *

(b) * * * *

(c) has secured at least 50 per cent marks in sessional work (home work, tutorial work, practical work and House examination/tests taken together) in each subject and in project work as laid down in the examination scheme.

(d) * * * *

(e) * * * *

It is clear and is net disputed that it was, necessary for the petitioners to have obtained 50 percent marks sessional work for being eligible to appear in the final examination of sixth semester on May 25, 1978. The petitioners did not secure 50 percent marks in the sessional work in as much at petitioner No 1 obtained 46 per cent and petitioner No. 2. 38 percent marks in the sessional work of R.C.C. Design and Drawing subjects.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the circular letter dated November 29, 1976, Annexure P. 2 has been issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Himanchal Pradesh, which contains instructions about the method on Teaching and holding of tests for adopting a uniform procedure for maintaining sessional awards of students. These instructions are meant to be followed by the College authorities. Instructions Nos. 4 and 6 incorporated therein were not followed The date supplied to the Rationalisation Committees constituted under rule 25 of the State Board of technical Education, Haryana was incomplete and defective which in turn vitiated its decision. The petitioners could not be detained by such decision of the Rationsalisation Committee there is hardly any merit in this contention. The Principal, Government Polytechnic (respondent No. 2) has averred in his written statement that the instructions contained in circular letter Annexure P. 2 were followed except that the tests could not be held during the months of February and March, 1978, due to the strike by the students It is, therefore, difficult to hold that there has keen substantial contravention of the instructions contained in circular letter Annexure P. 2 on the part of the Principal of the Government Polytechnic or his staff This apart, the circular letter Annexure P. 2 has no legal sanctity which otherwise is administrative in nature and contains only guidelines The contravention of any instructions contained there in would, therefore, not vitiate the decision of the Rationalisation Committee.

The petitioners were not eligible to appear for final examination of the sixth semester because they obtained less than 50 per cent marks in sessional work. They would continue to be so ineligible till they secure 50 per cent marks in sessional work The sessional marks awarded by the teachers of the petitioners were supplied to the Compilation Committee which in turn supplied the same to the Principal. The mark sheets were checked and signed by the teachers. The compiled sessional awards were checked and signed by the Compilation Committee. The Principal who received the awards from the Compilation Committee forwarded it to the Rationsalisation Committee of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana for scrutiny and rationsalisation. This Committee did the requisite scrutiny and also interviewed the petitioners. The failure of the petitioners to secure 50 per cent marks in sessional work of R.C.C. Design and Drawing subjects was affirmed. In this situation, there is hardly scope to hold that there has occurred any irregularity or defect in the matter of swarding marks to the petitioners in the sessional work.

In the result, the writ fails and is dismissed with costs.