( 1 ) THIS petition challenges the decision of the IIT, Delhi conveyed by its Dy. Registrar (UGS) in terms of letter dated 25. 7. 2005 which reads as follows: Sub: Termination of Registration The academic performance of student Ajay Kumar ramineni, 2003mt50427 during the end of 2nd semester 2004- 2005 as well as that of proceeding semesters was examined by the Standing Review Committee (SRC) of the Senate. In view of the fact that the cummulative performance is below the required minimum level for continuation, the registration of Ajay Kumar Ramineni is hereby terminated and his name is struck off the rolls of the Institute. This has approval of the Chairman, Senate.

( 2 ) THE contention of learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that the academic requirements mandating that a student in the general category must complete at least 50 credits at the end of 4th semester is irrational and bears no nexus to maintain exemplary academic standards leading ultimately to a Masters degree; and has worked a hardship on the Petitioner, which justifies the invocation and exercise of the extraordinary powers of this Court enshrined in Article 226 of the Constitution. Clause 3. 9 of the Prospectus for the year 2004-2005 in respect of the five year integrated Master of Technology Course envisages the termination of the registration of a student for the reason of unsatisfactory Academic Performance viz. failure to complete 50 credits at the end of 4th semester. It has been highlighted by learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner that so far as the Prospectus for the previous year was concerned it was reticent on the question of credits earned by students during the summer vacations and, therefore, it was not correct for the Respondent s to ignore the Petitioner s participation in the Summer Vacation Programme at the end of the 4th semester. The uncontroverted facts of the present case are that the Petitioner gained only 48. 5 credits till the conclusion of the 4th Semester. He had, therefore, attended the summer course in 2005 but that has not been taken into account by the Respondents, and if so done would bring him within the minimum standards of 50 credits. It has also been contended that the mandate of audi alteram partem have not been followed and that the termination of the Petitioner s registration was carried out without giving him an opportunity of being heard. In this regard, learned counsel for Respondents has drawn attention to the following observations of the hon ble Supreme Court in Jawaharlal Nehru University vs. B. S. Narwal, (1980) 4 SCC 480.

( 3 ) THE first question for our consideration is whether the respondent was entitled to an opportunity of being heard before action was taken removing him from the rolls of the University. What should be mentioned right at the outset is that this is not a case of expulsion of a student pursuant to a claim, by the authorities of a university, to discipline the student at their discretion and the right of the student to freedom and justice. The case is merely one of assessment of the academic performance of a student which the prescribed authorities of the University are best qualified and the courts, perhaps, are least qualified to judge. Nor can there be any question of any opportunity to be heard being given. One does not hear of a claim to be heard when a candidate fails to qualify at any aptitude or intelligence test, written or oral. When duly qualified and competent academic authorities examine and assess the work of a student over a period and declare his work to be unsatisfactory we are unable to see how any question of a right to be heard can arise. The duty of an academic body in such a case is to form an unbiased assessment of the student s standard of work based on the entirety of his record and potential . That is their function. The very nature of the function of academic adjudication (if the use of the word adjudication is permissible in the cont