Hardik Singh Jangpangi vs G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar & others

The petitioners in all these writ petitions are final semester students of B.Tech in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology (from hereinafter referred to as the "University"). As per the Academic Regulations, for a particular semester, there is a maximum credit load which can be given to a student. For an undergraduate, such as the petitioners in the present case, the maximum credit load for a semester is 22 credits. All the same, the Advisor of a student can permit a student to take upto a maximum of 24 credits in a particular semester, provided the Cumulative Grade Point Average (i.e. CGPA) of a student is not less than 7.500 for the preceding semester and the Grade Point Average (i.e. GPA) of a student in each of the preceding two semesters was not less than 7.500 and his/her CGPA at the end of preceding semester was not less than 6.00. There is another condition that such a student should not be under academic probation for the concerned semester.

Admittedly, in all cases, the CGPA as well as the GPA is less than what is prescribed under the Academic Regulations. Additionally, it is an admitted case that all the petitioners before this Court are on academic probation, which would mean that they have done comparatively poor in earlier semesters.

All the same, the powers given to the Advisor to permit an undergraduate student to take up a maximum of 24 credits, subject to the condition as referred above, is further enhanced in the case of the Dean, who can permit up to a maximum of 25 credits in case of an undergraduate student on certain grounds.

Regulation 29 of Academic Regulations reads as under:-

" Maximum Credit Load 29. (a) The following shall be the maximum credit load to be allowed by an Advisor: i Undergraduate 22 credits in a Semester (excluding credits for N.S.S Work Programme, N.C.C., Games and sports and New Education/Liberal Education Courses) ii. Full-time Postgraduate students (with Teaching/Research Assistantship): 16 Credits in a Semester. iii. Part-Time PG Students: 15 Credits in an academic year, i.e. two semesters subject to maximum of 8 credits in a semester. iv.) An Advisor may permit an undergraduate student to take upto a maximum of 24 credits in a particular semester on either of the following grounds: (1) The CGPA of the student at the end of the preceding semester was not less than 7.500 and he/she has also not been placed on Academic Probation for the instant semester. (2) The GPA of the student in each of the preceding two semesters was not less tan 7.500 and his/her CGPA at the end of preceding semester was not less than 6.00.

v. In genuine cases an Advisor may also permit a marginal adjustment upto 1 credit over the credit load prescribed in clause (I) to (ii) above.

Note:- For purposes of maximum and minimum credit load, staff members enrolled as post-graduate students under the joint Participant Training Programme shall be treated as full-time students. Such students shall be required to complete their programme in two years, for which period full salary will be paid to them. In special circumstances, however, they may be permitted by the Vice-Chancellor, on the recommendations of the Dean, Post- Graduate Students, and the Registrar to take one additional year, for which, however, they will be on half salary.

(b) Exceptions:- The Dean concerned may permit an increase in the maximum credit load (as specified above) upto the limits detailed below on any of the grounds listed in (c) below.

i. Undergraduate students:25 credits. ii. Full-time Postgraduate students:20 credits

(c) The grounds for increase in maximum credit load upto the limits laid down in 29 (b) above shall be as follows, but they shall not operate in case of students on Academic Probation: i. Where extra departmental or extra-non- credit courses are deemed necessary. ii. Where a course is not offered in the subsequent semester within the time laid down for the maximum duration of the courses. iii. Where only thesis requirements are left to be completed; and iv. Where four or less credits remain to be covered in the subsequent semester, v. Last semester of the degree programme.

(d) Any increase beyond the limits prescribed in (b) above, or on ground other than those listed in (c) above, may be permitted by the Vice- Chancellor on the recommendation of the Dean concerned for reasons to be recorded."

Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the Vice-Chancellor, however, is the ultimate authority, as a bare reading of Regulation 29 (d) shows that the Vice-Chancellor can even permit a student to take credit beyond 25 as given to the Dean, subject to certain conditions.

It is for this reason that on the last occasion the petitioners were not being permitted to take maximum credit of more than 25. The earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners were disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court with the following directions:

"Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment."

The respondent no. 2 in the above writ petitions is admittedly the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Pursuant to the said order, an order has been passed by the Registrar of the University on 23.02.2017, whereby the representations of the petitioners have been rejected by the Registrar on ground that the CGPA is less than 6.00 and moreover all the petitioners are on academic probation and, therefore, the relief as sought by them cannot be granted.

The fact remains that there was a specific direction by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the Vice-Chancellor to consider the representations of the petitioners. Evidently, this has not been done and the decision in fact has been taken by the Registrar. Merely because the decision has an approval of the Vice-Chancellor, it would not make it an order passed by the Vice-Chancellor. Not only was there a clear direction to the Vice-Chancellor to decide the representations of the petitioners but even the Academic Regulations, Regulation 29 (d) gives the power to the Vice-Chancellor and not to the Registrar. Therefore, the orders impugned are without jurisdiction and also in violation of the directions issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2017.

In view of the aforesaid, writ petitions are allowed. Orders dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Registrar are hereby quashed.

It is, however, made clear that this Court is not making any observation as to the merit of the case. The writ petitions have only been allowed and the orders impugned have been quashed purely on ground that the orders have not been passed in compliance of the directions of this Court and, moreover, the power to take a decision under the Academic Regulations vests with the Vice- Chancellor and not with the Registrar. The Vice-Chancellor is requested to take decision in the matter promptly considering that internal examinations of the petitioners are to commence from 01.04.2017.

Let certified copy of this order be issued today itself on payment of usual charges.