AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking that respondents No. 1 to 3 be directed to declare that the petitioner has successfully passed B.A. (H.E.P.) course with first class. The petitioner is also seeking that respondents No. 1 to 3 be directed to release to the petitioner the consolidated marks cards, transfer certificate and degree certificate for having passed B.A. (H.E.P.) course in first class.
The petitioner had secured admission to B.A. (H.E.P.) course in respondent No. 1-college which is an autonomous institution. The petitioner has thereafter completed the course and also secured admission for the Post Graduation in respondent No. 4-college. However while issuing the marks card to the petitioner, it has been indicated therein that he is ineligible for degree certificate as he has not completed the foundation course. It is in that view, the petitioner being aggrieved by the same is before this Court.
Respondent No. 1 has filed the objection statement contending that the indication as made in the marks card is justified. It is their case that though they are an autonomous institution, they are affiliated to respondent No. 3-University and as such, the entire course would be guided by the directions to be issued by respondent No. 3-University. In that light, it is contended that under graduate students are required to complete the foundation course as indicated in the respective courses which is based on the guidelines as issued by respondent No. 3-University. It is in that light contended that one of the foundation course for B.A. Graduate course is ''computer fundamentals''. The respondents therefore contend that the petitioner not having appeared for the foundation course of computer fundamentals cannot seek for issue of Degree Certificate since the course cannot be considered as complete in all respects. It is therefore contended that the prayer as made in the petition is liable to be rejected.
In the light of the pleadings that have been put forth herein, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.
The fact that the petitioner having joined the B.A.(H.E.P.) course in respondent No. 1-college and having completed the duration of course is not in dispute. The Prospectus issued indicating the Regulations of the College and the nature of study that is required to be made, in addition to the foundation course provided for U.G. students would also refer to the purport of autonomy of respondent No. 1-college wherein it is indicated that the course could be moulded by them.
Be that as it may, the question that arises for consideration herein is as to whether the prayer as sought in the petition is liable to be granted to the petitioner in the background of the circumstance that arises in the peculiar facts of the instant case.
The fact that the petitioner has not appeared for the ''computer fundamental'' examination as conducted by respondent No. 1-college is not seriously in dispute. However, the contention that is put forth on behalf of the petitioner is that as he had missed out the classes during the fourth semester, he had not appeared for the examination. But the case of the petitioner is that when the respondents have the liberty of granting exemption for appearing for the foundation course as has been granted in respect of one of the subjects viz, the Indian Constitution'' and the Prospectus itself indicates that the exemptions are available, when the petitioner has undergone a regular course in computers from a reputed institution like NUT, the same could have been taken into consideration as it is more advanced than the fundamental course and the exemption could be provided.
It is no doubt true that in a normal circumstance, such contention could not have been accepted since it is not for the student to choose the manner in which the course is required to be moulded, but would have to undergo the course as per the syllabus prescribed. However, there are certain aspects which would require consideration in the instant case. No doubt, as contended on behalf of respondent No. 3 also, the foundation course is provided for in the manner as has been indicated therein being the basic subjects in respect of the course.
In the instant case, the petitioner had joined B.A.(H.E.P.) course and on the premise that the subject Indian Constitution'' would be studied during the course the exemption of the said subject to be studied as a foundation course has been granted and as such, only the other two foundation subjects were to be studied. To a pointed question, the answer on behalf of the respondents is that there is no specific orders made in that regard to exempt the subject as a foundation subject. Since the Prospectus itself provides that the course studied as a main course is considered to be exempted, the said exemption has been granted, but without any specification in that regard. While taking note of this aspect, what is also to be kept in view is that the petitioner herein thereafter completed the Under Graduation Course and the marks card was also issued to him.
In that background, when the petitioner had sought admission for the Post Graduate Course in respondent No. 1-institution itself wherein he had studied his Under Graduate Course, he was provided admission to the first year Post Graduate course on 04.05.2015 and the fee was also paid by the petitioner and no objection was taken by respondent No. 1 nor was admission declined. The learned counsel for the respondents no doubt seeks to contend that mere payment of fees will not create any right since the under graduate course in any event would have to be completed, if he had to thereafter pursue the Post Graduate course. However, in my opinion, this is one of the circumstances which would weigh in favour of the petitioner since immediately after having obtained admission in respondent No. 1-institution, he had also made an attempt to secure admission in other institution and it is in that light, the petitioner had secured admission to the Post Graduate Course in respondent No. 1-college and had joined the course on 22.07.2015, but it is only at that stage, the respondents have taken such objection. But by such time, the petitioner had altered his position and proceeded further, if nothing by the very conduct of respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, he has been continued to pursue the Post Graduate Course.
Therefore, in that light, the contention as put forth by the petitioner that it would have to be deemed that the alternate course which is a very advance course in computers had been completed by the petitioner and the same had been impliedly accepted by the respondents as compliance of the requirement of undergoing foundation course which in the circumstances is to be accepted by this Court.
I am of the said opinion for the reason that as already indicated above, there was no specific order with regard to the exemption relating to another foundation course subject in relation to the same course on the ground that it was a main subject studied in the course in other words, since an advanced study of that subject will be made. In any event, going by the fact that what is provided as a foundation course in computers is basic fundamentals while the petitioner has completed a more advanced course and in a circumstance where he had been permitted to complete the course and also had been granted admission for the Post Graduation Course in respondent No. 1-institution itself, it would have to be assumed that the petitioner had been made to believe that the foundation course as prescribed had been accepted to be completed by him by taking into consideration all other facts and circumstances arising in the instant case.
Therefore, in the said circumstance, when the petitioner has obtained an admission to the Post Graduate Course in respondent No. 4-college on such belief, more particularly in a circumstance where respondent No. 1-institution itself had granted the admission to the Post Graduate Course, to direct the petitioner to discontinue the said course and only appear for the foundation course that too for computer fundamentals, when he has completed a more advanced computer course at this stage would not be justified.
Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the direction as sought in the petition is liable to be granted. As such, a direction is issued to respondents No. 1 to 3 to declare the petitioner as having successfully passed in B.A. (H.E.P.) course based on the marks that has already been obtained. In that light, respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to release the petitioner''s consolidated marks card, transfer certificate and the degree certificate for having passed B.A. (H.E.P.) course.
The direction issued herein shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case since the consideration made herein is in the peculiar facts and circumstances arising herein. The documents shall be issued to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to respondents No. 1 to 3.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.