Rohit Rana vs G.B. Pant University of Agriculture

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to refer matter to the respondent no. 2 so as to enable the respondent no. 2 to take a decision in accordance with Academic Regulations 29 (d) of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar in the case of the petitioner and the petitioner may be permitted to take maximum credit load of 24 points for the last semester of 8th semester of B.Tech. IVth year."

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

Petitioner is a student of B.Tech IVth year 8th semester in the College of Technology of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar. Petitioner got admitted in the said college, after passing the selection process of J.E.E. Mains-2013. Entire B.Tech. Course has been divided into 8 semesters, 2

semesters in each year. As per the Academic Regulations of the University, there is a criteria, wherein the student is promoted to next semester or next year, even without clearing all the examinations of a particular semester, provided he fulfills the other basic eligibility, which have been provided in the regulations itself. It is alleged that the petitioner has completed and passed 7th semester, though there are certain subjects, which could not be cleared in the respective semesters, however, the same are required to be cleared before the completion of the course. The other basic eligibility criteria to get promoted to the next semester or next year are being fulfilled by the petitioner. The University, in order to have an over all development of the students, had appointed the Advisors and further categorized each and every subjects, seminars, projects with credit rating and the curriculum is so desired as to provide with a subject combination in such a manner that, for a particular semester, the under graduate students should not have a credit load of more than 22. In order to have better guidance, the Advisors have been appointed by the University, who are usually the faculties of the students and their prime responsibility is regarding counselling of the students so as to have over all development, without there being burdened by the studies. According to the petitioner, a peculiar situation has been arisen that, in order to clear all the examinations and to complete the course, credit score goes beyond the maximum load permissible as per the Academic Regulations, in case of the petitioner. The petitioner, by doing some extra hard work, can

overcome such credit load, more particularly when this will affectively save a year of the petitioner, inasmuch as, if the degree is completed within time, the prospects to get admitted in other higher studies centers are open and this will affect the future career prospects of the petitioner. It is alleged that, according to the Academic Regulations, in a routine manner, the maximum credit load for the under graduate students is 22, however, the Advisor may provide for marginal adjustment up to 1 credit and, for seeking any permission beyond the aforesaid limit, an order from Vice Chancellor is required. According to the petitioner, the total credit load of the petitioner, which the petitioner has to clear in the present semester, is 24, however, the same can only be done if and only the permission is granted by the Vice Chancellor, that too on the recommendation of the Dean concerned, after recording the reasons. It is further alleged that if the petitioner is not permitted to allow the credit load of 24, he will not be entitled to registration and to further studies and will be debarred from appearing in the examination in the next semester. According to the petitioner, in the present set of circumstances, referring in Regulation 29, the registration of the petitioner has been refused by the respondent University. Though, during such period available for registration, the petitioner had made a representation to the concern Advisor, which was dully forwarded to the Dean, however, as the impediment contained in Regulation 29 neither the Advisor nor the Dean concerned were competent to grant the permission for bearing the credit load of 24, however,

the matter was never referred to the Vice Chancellor. Hence, this writ petition.

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer and prayed that direction may be issued to the respondent no. 2 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner at the earliest.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the G.B. Pant University would submit that the representation filed by the petitioner will be decided by the respondent no. 2 in accordance with law.

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.

There will be no order as to costs.

Let a certified copy of this judgment be issued by 20.02.2017.