J U D G M E N T

MINI PUSHKARNA, J:

C.M.No.47907/2022 (Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal)

1. Considering the averments made in the present application, the delay of 1 day in filing the present appeal is condoned.

2. The application is disposed of.

LPA 642/2022

3. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 1889/2021. By way of the impugned judgment, the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant seeking direction to the respondents to award degree of M.A. (Economics) and corresponding marksheet of passing the said examination, has been dismissed.

4. Facts in brief are that the appellant was a student of Amity University, Noida Campus for a two years course in M.A. (Economics) for the session 2016-2018. The said university prescribed a minimum Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 6.0 at the end of final year for qualifying the postgraduate/dual degree/integrated programme. Likewise, it was prescribed that students have to pass in each term/semester separately by securing a minimum Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) of 5.0. Since the appellant secured 4.96 SGPA in Semester – II and CGPA of 5.44 at the end of final year, and failed to secure minimum CGPA of 6.0 at the end of the final year, her result was shown as unsuccessful. The same was challenged by the appellant by filing writ petition before this Court. However, by the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2022, learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed on behalf of the appellant herein by holding that the university had its own passing criteria. Thus, the present appeal has come to be filed.

5. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that it is the statutory duty of the universities to adopt guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Learned counsel has referred to the UGC (Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of the Master’s Degree through Formal Education) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred as UGC Regulations). He relies upon Clauses 1.2, 6.1 and 6.5 of the said Regulations in order to contend that the UGC Regulations shall apply to all universities and that the universities shall adopt the guidelines issued by the UGC from time to time.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further relies upon ‘UGC Guidelines on Adoption of Choice Based Credit System’ (hereinafter referred as UGC guidelines). By referring to the same, it is contended that UGC has itself prescribed that it is desirable to introduce Uniform Grading System. It is further contended that the stipulation in the UGC Guidelines that the universities can decide on the grade or percentage of marks required to pass in a course, refers to only professional degrees wherein the pass grades/percentage can be decided by the universities on the recommendations of statutory professional councils, as enumerated therein.

7. Learned counsel for appellant has also referred to Student Handbook issued by the university, wherein grading system is elaborated, as also to the ‘Regulations on Conduct of Examinations, Scheme of Evaluation and Discipline among students in Examinations’ (hereinafter referred as University Regulations). It is submitted that as per the exam result issued by the university, the appellant is shown to have ‘Credits Earned’ to the extent of 100% and ‘Courses Passed’ to the extent of 100%. Similarly, the appellant has been shown to have ‘Earned Credit Units’ (ECU) of 111.00.

However, she has wrongly been shown as unsuccessful.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon The Uttar Pradesh Private Universities Act, 2019 to contend that the same stipulates that the universities shall conform to the standards, conditions and regulations set by UGC and other regulatory bodies established by the State Government or Central Government. Further, any arrangement made by the university shall not be inconsistent to the provisions of the Act or Regu