SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. SEN, A. VARADARAJAN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
Punjab University, Chandigarh, Appellant
Versus
Devjani Chakrabarti and others, Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 1381 of 1980 and 2667 of 1983
Decided on 17-5- 1984.
AND
Punjab University, Chandigarh, Appellant
Versus
Ranjit Singh Negi and others, Respondents.
Punjab University Act - Section 20 (5) and 31 - Educational institutions - Degree course - Pattern of education - Association of Indian Universities decided equivalence of this 10 + 2 + 3 system with old 11 + 3 years degree course system which was prevalent in some States and it suggested that in all States where pattern of education is such as to require 14 years for first degree i. e. 11 + 3 years, new plus 2 stage of Central Board of Secondary Education to be treated as equivalent to a pass in first year of three-years degree course or for admission to first year of two-years degree course - Suggestion was conveyed by Association of the Indian Universities to Chairman of Central Board of Secondary Education by a letter dated - These recognitions of equivalence of those two examinations continued till beginning of year - But on Punjab University decided that first year student of plus 2 course in 10 + 2 + 3 system of Central Boards Schools who does not take a public examination at end of first year should not be considered as equivalent to student who has passed Pre-University examination of Punjab University for joining Pre-Medical/ Pre-Engineering/ B. A. Part I/ B. Sc. Part I/ B. Com. Part I of University - Held, appeared for final M. B. B. S. examination in 1974 and secured 106 out of 200 marks in practical examination and 95 out of 200 marks in the theory examination in Midwifery, which was one of four subjects for which he appeared at that time - He had passed examinations in other three subjects for which total aggregate was 1200 marks - In allowing appeal against judgment of Full Bench we have held that there was no question of rule having any retrospective operation as it was framed and it did not say that it was operative from any earlier date and it was applied - It could not be stated to be retrospective in operation merely because it was applied to who had joined course before amendment was made - In the present case also the new decisions are prim facie prospective in operation and they did not become retrospective merely because they subsequently applied to students who had already started their educational careers - Without any order as to costs and set aside judgments of High Court and dismiss writ petitions - However, this decision will not affect right which might have been granted to petitioners in writ petitions on basis of judgments of High Court which have been reversed in these appeals - Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
A. VARADARAJAN, J.:—These appeals by special leave are by the Punjab University and directed against two Division Bench judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Writ Petitions 1917 of 1980 and 2349 of 1980, allowing those writ petitions without any order as to costs. W. P. 2349 of 1980 was allowed at the motion stage on 18-7-1980 as being covered by the decision in W. P. 1917 of 1980 which was disposed of on 7-7-1980. Kulwant Singh Tiwana, J. is a party to both the judgments and he sat with Harbans Lal, J. for hearing W. P. 1917 of 1980 and with M. M. Punchi, J. for hearing W. P. 2349 of 1980. In these circumstances, it is necessary to state only the facts relating to W. P. 1917 of 1980 alone briefly.
2. The system known as "10 plus 2 plus 3 system" was introduced in the educational institutions in the country some years ago. The Association of Indian Universities decided the equivalence of this 10 + 2 + 3 system with the old 11 + 3 years degree course system which was prevalent in some States and it suggested that in all States where the pattern of education is such as to require 14 years for the first degree i. e. 11 + 3 years, the new plus 2 stage of the Central Board of Secondary Education to be treated as equivalent to a pass in the first year of the three-years degree course or for admission to the first year of the two-years degree course. This suggestion was conveyed by the Association of the Indian Universities to the Chairman of the Central Board of Secondary Education by a letter dated 18-4-1978. The appellant, Punjab University, decided on 10-12-1977 that the 12th Standard examination conducted by the Boards/Universities under the new 10+2+3 system be recognised as equivalent to the Pre-Medical/ Pre-Engineering/ B. A. Part I/ B. Sc. Part I/ B. Com. Part I examination according to the combination of the subjects. Subsequently, on 4-6-1978 the Punjab University decided to treat the 11th Standard of the new 10 + 2 + 3 system as equivalent to the Pre-University examination of the University. Copies of those decisions dated 10-12-1977 and 4-6-1978 were Annexures P.2 and P.3 respectively in W. P. 1917 of 1980. These recognitions of the equivalence of those two examinations continued till the beginning of the year 1980. But on 18-4-1980 the Punjab University decided that the first year student of the plus 2 course in the 10 + 2 + 3 system of the Central Boards Schools who does not take a public examination at the end of the first year should not be considered as equivalent to the student who has passed the Pre-University examination of the Punjab University for joining the Pre-Medical/ Pre-Engineering/ B. A. Part I/ B. Sc. Part I/ B. Com. Part I of the University. On 7-5-1980, the Punjab University decided that the 12th Standard Examination in the new 10 + 2 + 3 system conducted by any recognised Board/Council/University shall be treated as equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the University. These decisions dated 18-4-1980 and 7-5-1980 are Annexures R-2 and R-3 respectively in W. P. 1917 of 1980.
3. Petitioners 1 to 37 in W. P. 1917 of 1980 had passed the 12th Standard examination in the 10 + 2 + 3 system of the Central Board of Education and petitioners 38 to 92 in the writ petition had been promoted from the 11th standard to the 12th Standard in that system. These 92 petitioners filed W. P. 1917 of 1980 challenging the Punjab Universitys decisions (Annexures R-2 and R-3) dated 18-4-1980 and 7-5-1980 contending that in view of the earlier decisions of the University, namely, Annexures P.2 and P.3 dated 10-12-1977 and 4-6-1978 respectively they had joined the classes in the plus 2 course with the object of joining the colleges affiliated to the University in the next class of equivalence as also Engineering and Medical Colleges and that the University cannot, therefore, change those decisions by the subsequent decisions, Annexures R-2 and R-3 to their detriment. They invoked the doctrine of pro
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.