Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 402
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D.B. Bhosale, S.V. Bhatt, JJ.
Arshia Tanveer and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Osmania University and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 1727 and 2360 of 2015
Decided On: 24.06.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants: K. Lakshmi Narasimha
For the Respondents: Deepak Bhattacharjee, SC
Headnote:
Constitution of India –Education - Osmania University/respondents 1 and 2. – Declaring the action of the respondents in detaining the petitioners in BE 2nd year/1st year/3rd year as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to prosecute their studies by permitting them to attend the classes of BE 2nd year 1st semester/4th year 1st semester and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the main examinations as well as the supplementary examinations for the back log subjects in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as the Honble Court may deem fit ad proper. "without break and consequently, and pass such other order or orders as the Honble Court may deem fit ad proper." Appearing in the semester/year wise examination a writ or order preferably in the nature of Mandamus and declare the action of the University in not permitting the petitioners to attend/continue the BE Courses of next year/semester without break subject to clearing off the permissible back log subject is wholly arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitutional and consequently quash, and consequently declare that the petitioners are entitled to attend/continue the next year/semester including appearing in the semester/year wise examination and consequently direct the University Authorities to permit the petitioners to prosecute their BE Courses by permitting them to continue in the next year/semester including –Held admittedly the respondents have applied and implemented the rule uniformly to all the students who have appeared for the exams. As a result of such implementation of rule, it is brought on record that 95% of the students have been promoted to next academic year. The case of petitioners is not that the respondents have not followed the rule or have followed the rule illegally, but the petitioners want further relaxation of backlog subjects in view of the agitation that was admittedly going on in the State at that point of time. It is in this background the Standing Committee of Academic Senate, as already noted, has given distinct and convincing reasons for not accepting the request of the petitioners for further relaxation of backlog subjects. The issue is one of academic standards and in the exclusive domain of Academic Senate. From the nature of prayer, the petitioners request for further relaxation of backlog subjects. The Standing Committee of Academic Senate being the highest body in the University which is alive to all the circumstances, including the agitation at that point with a view to maintaining academic standards, rejected the request of further relaxation. Except the points already argued, the petitioners have not pointed out a circumstance of law or fact attracting the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal and re-appreciate the details, however hard the situation may be and express an independent view, contrary to the applicable rules. The grounds urged by the petitioners are without substance and are accordingly rejected. The writ petitions fail and are dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of -Petition Dismissed.
S.V. Bhatt, J.
1. Heard Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for Osmania University/respondents 1 and 2. The prayers in these writ petitions are slightly different and for immediate reference, they are reproduced hereunder:
W.P. No. 1727 of 2015
".....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in detaining the petitioners in BE 2nd year/1st year/3rd year as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to prosecute their studies by permitting them to attend the classes of BE 2nd year 1st semester/4th year 1st semester and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the main examinations as well as the supplementary examinations for the back log subjects in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit ad proper."
W.P. No. 2360 of 2015
"....to issue a writ or order preferably in the nature of Mandamus and declare the action of the University in not permitting the petitioners to attend/continue the BE Courses of next year/semester 2014-15 & 2015-16 without break subject to clearing off the permissible back log subject is wholly arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitutional and consequently quash Lr No. 351/Acad.1/2015 dated 24-1-2015, and consequently declare that the petitioners are entitled to attend/continue the next year/semester 2014-15 & 2015-16 including appearing in the semester/year wise examination and consequently direct the University Authorities to permit the petitioners to prosecute their BE Courses by permitting them to continue in the next year/semester of 2014-15 & 2015-16 including appearing in the semester/year wise examination without break and consequently, and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit ad proper."
2. For convenience, the pleadings in W.P. No. 2360 of 2015 are referred to.
3. The petitioners in these two writ petitions are engineering students prosecuting BE (Degree) in colleges affiliated to Osmania University, Hyderabad/1st respondent. The four year degree course is divided into one year and from 2nd year onwards into six semesters with two semesters in each academic year. The admission and the promotion of students in BE courses are governed by Rules and Regulations. Part IV of the Regulations deals with promotion of students from one academic year to another year. The Rule of detention stipulates that a student with 12 backlog subjects in an academic year is not promoted to next academic year. The petitioners refer to the agitation for separate statehood to Telangana and that the agitation has affected the students' academic calendar. The petitioners claim to have pursued the course under fear psychosis and consequently the performance of students in the examinations was not up to the expectation. The allegation against the 1st respondent-University is that the 1st respondent-University has not conducted the supplementary exams as per schedule or immediately after the main/general examination. The delay in conducting the supplementary examination has resulted in loss of one complete year by operation of rule of detention for having more backlog subjects. Further, due to delay in conducting the supplementary examination, the very purpose of conducting supplementary examination is lost and is due to the shortsightedness of the 1st respondent-University. According to the petitioners, had the supplementary examinations illustratively stated for the main examination of May/June of academic year been conducted in the month of July/August and for the main examination in November/December supplementary examination conducted in October/November, t
