THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH CURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ, N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J
Promita Narzary, D/o- Lt. Derhasat Narzary - Appellant
Versus
The Bodoland University - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No.3760/2022
Decided On : 11-03-2025
(A) Bodoland University Regulations on Undergraduate Degree Examinations Under Choice Based Credit System, 2015 - Regulations 5.3 and 19.6 - Challenge to the validity of regulations restricting the number of attempts for clearing backlog papers - Regulations provide maximum of three chances within five years, contrary to UGC guidelines allowing flexibility - Court finds regulations consistent with UGC guidelines and dismisses petition. (Paras 1 - 24 )
(B) Education Law - University autonomy in setting examination regulations - Universities have discretion to determine the number of attempts for students under their jurisdiction, provided it aligns with overarching guidelines. (Paras 20 - 21 )
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, students of U.N. Academy, challenged the withholding of results by Bodoland University for exceeding the permitted attempts to clear backlog papers, claiming it violated UGC guidelines.
Findings of Court:
Regulations 5.3 and 19.6 of Bodoland Regulations do not contravene UGC guidelines; the challenge is dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the regulations restricting attempts for backlog papers are unconstitutional and contrary to UGC guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Bodoland Regulations are consistent with UGC guidelines, which do not specify the number of attempts; thus, the regulations are valid.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.
1. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioners challenging the validity of the Regulations 5.3 and 19.6 of the Bodoland University Regulations On Under- Graduate Degree Examinations Under Choice Based Credit System, 2015 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Bodoland Regulations’)
2. In the writ petition, the petitioners have made the following prayer :-
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the students of U.N. Academy affiliated to the Bodoland University and they have successfully cleared all the papers of B.Sc./B.A. course except one backlog paper. It is the case of the petitioners that for the purpose of clearing specific backlog papers, the students have submitted their examination forms with the requisite examination fees to appear fourth time in the said backlog paper and the same was accepted by the University. Pursuant to that, they appeared in the said examination but the respondent University withheld their results. Being aggrieved with the action of the Bodoland University of withholding their results, the petitioners preferred a writ petition, being, WP(C) 828/2022 before the Writ Court. However, in the Writ Court, the Bodoland University has taken a stand that the Regulation Nos.5.3 and 19.6 of the Bodoland Regulations do not permit fourth chance to any student to clear backlog paper and as such, the result of the petitioners have rightly been withheld by the University though they have appeared in the examination for the fourth time in the respective backlog paper.
4. Confronting with the said stand of the Bodoland University, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the validity of the Regulations 5.3 and 19.6 with the prayer which is already noted in the earlier part of the judgment. It is also to be noticed that the writ petition, which was preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved with the action of the Bodoland University of withholding their results, is still pending consideration before the Writ Court.
5. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we confine ourselves to examine the validity of the Regulations 5.3 and 19.6 of the Bodoland Regulations only.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Bodoland Regulations are framed as per the UGC guidelines issued in the year 2015. It is submitted that the main objective of the Bodoland Regulations is to improve choices of the students to keep up a changing education system. It is submitted that the Regulation 5 of the Bodoland Regulations specifically clarifies that a UG degree program for regular students shall be for minimum of three years and maximum of five years. It is further contended that Regulation 5.2 of the Bodoland Regulations clearly spells out that if a student fails to clear all the th semester examination within normal duration i.e. 6 semester, he/she can avail maximum of 10 semesters. It is submitted that the objective of these two regulations is to grant maximum chances within five years for completion of a course but the Regulation 5.3 of the Bodola
The court upheld the validity of Bodoland University Regulations that limit attempts for clearing backlog papers, finding them consistent with UGC guidelines.
The 2023 Guidelines supersede previous regulations, prohibiting the awarding of grace marks in MBBS examinations, emphasizing the court's limited role in academic policy matters.
The court established that new educational regulations can supersede previous ones, and students do not have a vested right to evaluation standards that have changed.
The UGC has the power to define the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any university, and universities can prescribe higher standards for admission but cannot dilute the....
Education Law - Re-evaluation and re-scrutiny of result - A student who has been permitted to seek reevaluation in terms of Clause 6 of Regulations and her marks considered as final score post re-eva....
The UGC has the power to define the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University, and the impugned regulation was not in compliance with the UGC regulations.
The provision denying a gold medal to re-evaluated candidates was declared unconstitutional, reinforcing the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding academic standards and not interfering in academic discipline, as emphasized by legal precedents cited by the court.
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.