K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral)

Since these appeals raise common issues, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment.

2. These appeals arise out of writ petitions filed by undergraduate students of the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (hereinafter referred to as “the Institute”). The writ petitioners are all students pursuing undergraduate courses in B. Tech. or integrated courses. Each year is divided into two semesters called the Autumn and the Spring Semesters. The Institute taking refuge under Regulation 33(a) terminated the enrolment of the writ petitioners. We extract Regulation 33(a).

“33(a) The enrolment of a student in a programme, shall stand terminated if he/she fails to earn the minimum number of credits specified at different yearly levels in the programme as given in Appendix-‘J’ and fails to secure minimum CGPA of 5.00, notwithstanding the fact that the student has or has not been put under academic probation. Semester withdrawal will be excluded to determine the yearly level of a student for this purpose. This condition will also not be applicable if a student is not allowed to register for the courses of current year in accordance with 18(2). The communication regarding termination of enrolment shall be issued by the Academic Section within fifteen days from the date of declaration of results.”

3. In all cases save three the writ petitioners had obtained the minimum credit points as provided in Regulation 33(a) read with Schedule ‘J’, but they did not obtain 5 CGPA. In the two appeals filed by the Institute, the writ petitioners are students, who had not obtained minimum credit in Regulation 33 but had obtained 5 CGPA within the meaning of Regulation 33(a). In one of the appeals, i.e. Special Appeal No. 375 of 2015, the concerned student had neither obtained minimum credit as required under Regulation 33(a) nor did he acquire 5 CGPA.

4. The writ petitions filed by the students, who had obtained the minimum credit points, but had not obtained 5 CGPA were dismissed by the learned Single Judge, whereas the writ petitions, two in number, filed by the students who had obtained 5 CGPA, but not obtained the minimum credit points as required under Regulation 33(a) were allowed by the learned Single Judge. It is feeling aggrieved by the same that the writ petitioners, on one hand in one set of cases as aforesaid feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitions and the Institute on the other hand in respect of two students, wherein the writ petitions were allowed and their cases have been directed to be considered have challenged the common judgment of the learned Single Judge.

5. We have heard Shri Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants, who have not obtained 5 CGPA. We also heard Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel who appeared in Special Appeal Nos. 359 of 2015, 366 of 2015,367 of 2015, 368 of 2015, 370 of 2015 and 371 of 2015. Besides we heard Shri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel, who appears for the Institute in all the appeals including the appeals filed by the Institute. Shri Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel also appeared on behalf of the respondents against which appeals have been filed by the Institute.

6. Shri Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in not noticing the effect of Regulation 34 on termination of enrolment on Regulation 33. He further drew our attention to Regulation 18. He would submit that Regulation 18 (2) contemplates that the students who had failed in the courses being allowed to clear the courses in the years to come. He would submit that under the formula provided by the Regulation, actually the students when they get the requisite credits on being permitted to continue with the course/courses, in which they had failed, it