AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Raikote, J.—The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-University to permit the petitioner to take the examination of the back-log subjects of the four Semesters of the I and II year B.Sc. (Agr.) likely to be held in April/May, 1995 or about for the academic year 1994-95.
The undisputed facts, in this case, are that the petitioner who was a student of the respondent-University studying in the Agricultural College, Rajendernagar, Hyderabad, appeared for the first semester, but declared failed. However, according to the Regulations, she was allowed to continue the second semester. After completion of the second semester, she appeared for the examination of second semester in which also, she was declared failed. This happened in the years 1989-90 and 1990-91. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a re-examination Form on 28-3-1992, but she did not write the examination. Again on 16-6-1994, the petitioner applied for permission for writing the examination for the back-log subjects. On the basis of the said application, dated 16-6-1994, petitioner is not being permitted to appear for the first and second semester in the failed subjects. No communication is also issued in that behalf.
The 1st respondent-University has filed a counter to this writ petition. It is stated in para No. 2 of the counter as under:
"She applied for permission to appear for the examinations in the back-log courses on 16-6-94. The Principal, College of Agril. Rajendernagar has submitted the application along with his remarks on 29-6-94 stating that she was not eligible to appear for the re-examination in the back-log courses of I & II years as per Regulation 7.3 of UG Regulations of APAU as the period of discontinuance was more than two years. The extract of the Regulation 7.3 is given below:
"Where a student leaves the college after completion of I semester for reasons beyond his/her control, he/she shall be eligible for re-admission within one year by the Principal to the appropriate semester under intimation to the University. Where the period of break exceeds two years, a reference should be made to the University and the decision of the University shall be final."
The matter was examined by the APAU and the request of the petitioner was negatived since the period of absence was more than 2 years."
From the counter extracted above, it is clear that respondent-University contends that the petitioner was not eligible for re-examination in view of Regulation No. 7.3. The learned counsel for the Respondent-University also contends that since the petitioner had left the College after the first and second semesters, and she was eligible for re-admission in the courses within one year by the Principal, and when the period of break exceeded by two years, by the University. But, the petitioner was not eligible for the examination. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Regulation 7.3 does not apply to the facts of the case and, that pertains only for the first admission in the College and it does not apply to a situation where a person intends to take the examination in failed subjects.
In order to appreciate the rival contentions, I have to notice the Regulations of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University for under Graduate Courses under Semester Pattern of Education. Vide Regulation 7.1., it is provided that every student shall attend all the meetings in the course and the minimum attendance prescribed is 75%. A person who fails to put in the minimum attendance shall not be permitted to appear for the semester final examination. As per Regulation 7.2. if the student admitted to the I year, does not register for the course, or having registered it, does not put in at least 75% of the attendance, his/her admission shall be cancelled. Regulation 7.3. which is a relevant Regulation for the purpose of this case may be extracted as under:
"Where a student leaves the college after completion of I semester for reasons beyond his/her control, he/she shall be eligible for re-admission within one year by the principal to the appropriate semester under intimation to the University. Where the period of break exceeds one year, but does not exceed two years, a reference should be made to the university and the decision of the University shall be final."
From these regulations, it is clear that a student who seeks admission to the courses of the University, has to register himself/herself as per Regulation 6.1,and such admission may be cancelled if a person fails to put in the attendance at least 75%. As per Regulation 7.3, where a student leaves the College after completion of the first semester, he/she shall be eligible for re-admission within one year by the Principal and in case, if such period exceeds more than two years, as per the decision of the University. As per Regulation 7.4, where a student leaves the College taking the T.C. shall not be eligible for re-admission.
From these regulations, it is clear that Regulations 6.1, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 pertain to a student who has yet to undergo the courses by keeping the attendance, but they do not relate to a situation where a student has completed the courses and has taken final examinations in the first and second semesters, but has failed in those examinations, and such student wants to re-appear for the examination in the failed subjects. Therefore, the case as put-forth by the learned counsel for the respondent-University that the petitioner was not eligible for appearing for the examinations, in the light of Regulation 7.3 is not tenable. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-University is that once a student has not taken further examinations for two years, it shall be deemed that the student has left the College and automatically and admission stands cancelled and such a student if wants to take up the courses, shall seek re-admission in the courses in terms of Regulation 7.3. As I have stated above, Regulations 6.1., 7.1, 7.2, 7.3., etc. do not apply to the situation with which we are concerned in this case. They pertain to a student who got his admission and before completing the courses, left the College. Such leaving the College may be with T.C. or without taking the T.C. But, in the instant case, the petitioner is only a failed candidate and such a failed candidate is entitled for re-examination and such candidate shall not be deemed to have left the college in terms of Regulations 7.2 and 7.3. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-University cannot be accepted.
As I have noticed above, the case on hand is one of failed candidate. The Regulations that could be applicable to such a failed candidate would be Regulations 9.1 (a) 9.1(b), 9.1(c), 9.2 and 9.3. Regulation 9.1(b) provides that a student obtaining grade point of 6.0 to 6.4 shall be considered to have passed the course but not satisfactory. A student getting less than 6.0 shall be deemed to have failed in the course and ''F'' shall be indicated in the grade report. Regulation 9.1(b) part 2 reads as under:
"A student who had failed (who secured grade point below 6.0 or who secured grade point above 6.0 but secured below 50% in semester final examinations) or was marked absent in a course at the previous examination shall appear for either the final theory or practical examination or in both (as the case may be)."
From this, it follows that a failed candidate could re-appear in theory as well as practical examinations. For such a candidate who has failed in the subject, who wants to re-appear in the examination, has to make an application in terms of Regulation 9.1(c) (iv) with the prescribed application form by paying the re-examination fee of Rs. 20/- for each course within 25 days from the date of commencement of the subsequent semester. Regulation 9.3 further provides that not withstanding the academic performance of a student prescribed earlier, a student is deemed to have been withdrawn from the University, if he fails to complete the graduation requirements, within 5 years i.e. 10 semesters, 6 years i.e. 12 semesters and 7 years i.e. 14 semesters from the date of first admission for the faculties of Home Science, Agriculture and Verterinary Science respectively. A proviso is also added to this Regulation stating that the Vice-Chancellor may, at his discretion, extend the maximum period by not exceeding two semesters in exceptional circumstances and deserving cases on the recommendation of the Principal concerned. But, now it has been brought to my notice that vide proceedings dated 15-11-1990, in proceedings No. 1811/ ACAD.I/90, the entire Regulation 9.3. is deleted. The resultant position would be that in terms of Regulation 9.1(b), a student is entitled to reappear in the said final examination theory or practical examinations or both, if he is a failed candidate, or a candidate who was absent in the course of previous examination. Further by Regulation 9.1(c), it is provided that "whenever" such a student who wants to take re-examination, he should file an application by filling in, the particulars in a separate printed application form, by paying the prescribed fee. The word "whenever" found in Regulation 9. 1(c), makes it clear that there would not be any time limitation. The limitation of 5 years, or 6 years or 7 years, etc. earlier found in Regulation 9.3 stood deleted by amendment dated 15-11-1990.
In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner, who has failed in the first and second semesters in the years 1989-90 and 1990-91, is entitled to re-appear for the examination in terms of Regulation 9.1(c)(iv). The respondent-University has been refusing the application of the petitioner for re-examination in terms of Regulation 7.3.,which does not apply to such contingency. Hence, I allow the writ petition and pass the following order:
I hereby direct the respondent-University to permit the petitioner for the re-examination in the subjects in which the petitioner has failed on the basis of her application, dated 16-6-1994, if the petitioner pays necessary prescribed fee.