Shamarao Jahagirdar vs University of Agricultural Sciences

Saldanha, J.—Heard petitioners'' learned Advocate and the learned Advocate who represents the University, On behalf of the respondents, a request has been conveyed that some further time be granted to place on record a formal reply, Had there been any need, I would have certainly granted the request of the learned Advocate. However, the Petitions involve only one clear cut point of law which to my mind does not require any factual reply. The learned Advocates have made their submissions with regard to the merits of the matter.

The issue in dispute is that the petitioners were students of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore doing their M.Sc (Agrl) Degree and they completed the same in the year 1994-95. They have set out a detailed narration of their academic careers and their professional achievements and I find from this that these were all top of the grade students. According to them, having regard to the grades obtained by them also their career record that they would have been qualified for the award of Gold Medals because the existing Regulations prescribe that they have to get an overall grade of 8.5 out of 10 for this purpose. It is relevant for me to point out that it is not only the assessment of the final examination but that the examination includes practicals etc., held in the earlier course of study which also contributes to the overall assessment. According to the petitioners, the University in or about August, 1994 had changed the criteria by increasing it to 9.50. It is their case that they Were unaware of the change and that only when the Convocation Programme was announced that they were excluded from the list of Gold Medal awardees. Hence they have moved this Court. This position is denied on behalf of the University and it has contended that the students were well aware of the change.

Petitioners'' learned Advocate has submitted that in comparison with the Regulations framed by other Universities which are still adopting the 8.5 criteria, that the target of 9.5 is unreasonably high and that therefore, the Regulation should be struck down. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the University submitted that the Academic Council of the University is well within its authority to raise the qualifying standards for gold medals in appropriate subjects to the levels which it considers necessary and that therefore, the Regulation is perfectly reasonable. To my mind, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the decision of the University in so far as one has to take note of the fact that the University Authorities who take these decisions are highly qualified and experienced Educationists and it is presumed that they are fully aware of the necessity of altering the qualifying standards in some subjects. To that extent therefore, I do not propose to interfere with the change that has been effected.

The issue that is required to be determined in this case is as to whether the change that was effected at the fag end of the career of this batch of students which materially alters the targets set for them can be permitted, having regard to the timing of the action. Even assuming that the students were made aware of this change, it does not make much difference because it would be too late at that point of time for this batch of students to qualify for the higher target having regard to the fact that their course was almost complete when the change was made. Under these circumstances, it is only fair that the earlier Regulation which prescribes the target of 8.5 out of 10 should apply as far as this batch of students are concerned. The respondent''s learned Advocate clarifies that there is some difference between the earlier semester system and the semesters that are now in force and that this change has been in view of the said alteration. That would not make any difference because the question is as to whether the students who qualify for this target had adequate notice and whether they have been informed about the altered position with regard to the change that was made. Having regard to the fact that the decision was taken at the fag end of the career of the petitioners it was wrong on the part of the University authorities to have applied the altered Regulation to that particular batch of students. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The only direction that can now be issued is that since the Convocation has taken place already, the University shall re-consider the matter in the light of the grades obtained by these petitioners having regard to the earlier criteria and if they would have been qualified for the award of the Gold Medals in question that corrective steps be taken in this case within a period of eight weeks from today. It has been pointed out by the petitioners'' learned Advocate that it is not only the question of prize that the University awards but that it makes a substantial difference in the future career of these petitioners.

Rule is accordingly made absolute to this extent.

No order as to costs.